AN INVESTIGATION OF A MATHEMATICS RECOVERY · PDF fileThis thesis describes an intervention...
Transcript of AN INVESTIGATION OF A MATHEMATICS RECOVERY · PDF fileThis thesis describes an intervention...
1
AN INVESTIGATION OF A MATHEMATICS
RECOVERY PROGRAMME FOR MULTIPLICATIVE REASONING TO A
GROUP OF LEARNERS IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT: A CASE STUDY
APPROACH
By
ZANELE ABEGAIL MOFU 97K3492
Presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Education (Mathematics Education)
Rhodes University, Grahamstown November 2013
2
DECLARATION
I declare that this Research Project represents my original work. It is being submitted for
the degree of Master of Mathematics Education at Rhodes University, Grahamstown. It has
not been submitted for any degree or examination at any university.
__________________________________________________________________________
(Signature of candidate)
_________ Day of_____________20_______________in_______________
3
DEDICATION AND THANKS
I dedicate this thesis to my family, my mother, Maggie Kalipile, my son Axolile Mofu, and
two daughters, Anelisa Mofu, and Cwenga Mofu who supported me, giving me the courage
and strength to complete this journey.
Whilst undertaking this research study I had an opportunity to present aspects of my work to
two regional conferences; the Eastern Cape SAARMSTE conference and the Eastern Cape
AMESA conference. I was also able to run workshops with teachers and district officials in
the Eastern Cape Department of Education on Multiplication and Division. I produced a
handbook called “Developing Fluency in Multiplication and Division” for these workshops.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• SA Numeracy Chair, Rhodes University supported by the FirstRand, Anglo American
Chairman’s fund, the Department of Science and Technology and the National
Research Foundation who funded my studies
• Professor Mellony Graven, my supervisor, for mentoring and providing me with the
opportunity to develop as a student and professionally
• Debbie Stott, my co supervisor, for the valuable feedback, nurturing my development
as a researcher, helping me to find the confidence in myself
• The learners who participated in my study and the parents of those learners
• All family, friends and colleagues for their words of advice and support
• Teachers who gave me an opportunity to share my findings of the study and for
encouraging me to write a handbook “Developing Fluency in Multiplication and
Division”.
5
ABSTRACT
This thesis describes an intervention using the Mathematics Recovery programme in a
South African context with a small sample of Grade 4 learners. The study uses a qualitative
case study approach. The data collection included video recorded one-to-one oral interviews
with the learners. I used the Learning Framework in Number (LFIN) developed by Wright,
Martland, Stafford and Stanger (2006) to profile the learners using pre and post intervention
interview data and to determine their levels of multiplicative reasoning. The analysis
showed the positive impact of the Mathematics Recovery programme on the improvement
of multiplicative reasoning. The study contributes to the use of Mathematics Recovery
programmes in South Africa from both a teacher and teacher educator perspective.
6
ACRONYMS USED IN THE STUDY
Acronym Meaning
ANA (ANAs) Annual National Assessment (s)
BWNS Backward Word Number Sequences
CAPS Curriculum and Assessment Statement
FNWS Forward Number Word Sequences
LFIN Learning Framework in Number
MR Mathematics Recovery
SMT School Management Team
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION AND THANKS ____________________________________________ 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS _______________________________________________ 4 ABSTRACT ____________________________________________________________ 5
ACRONYMS USED IN THE STUDY _______________________________________ 6 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE & RATIONALE _______________ 9
INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________ 9 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY ____________________________________________ 9
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION _____________________________________________ 10 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY _____________________________________________ 11
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY _____________________________________________ 13 RESEARCH QUESTIONS _______________________________________________ 13
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY _________________________ 13 OUTLINE OF THIS THESIS _____________________________________________ 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ________________________________ 16 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 16
HISTORICAL AND CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK __________________________ 16 SOUTH AFRICAN LEARNER PERFORMANCE ON MATHEMATICS ___________ 17
MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY _______________________________________ 20 PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING __________________________________________ 21
MULTIPLICATIVE REASONING _________________________________________ 23 EARLY NUMERACY INTERVENTION ____________________________________ 27
MATHEMATICS RECOVERY PROGRAMME _______________________________ 28 CONCLUDING REMARKS _____________________________________________ 33
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY ______________ 34 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 34
RESEARCH QUESTIONS _______________________________________________ 35 RESEARCHER _______________________________________________________ 36
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY __________________________________________ 36 RESEARCH METHOD _________________________________________________ 37
DATA COLLECTION METHODS ________________________________________ 38
8
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ____________________________________ 39
OVERVIEW OF INTERVENTION PROGRAMME ___________________________ 42 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ___________________________________________ 49
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ______________________ 51 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 51
LEARNER PROGRESS IN LFIN LEVELS __________________________________ 51 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ________________________________________ 65
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY __________________________________________ 67 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ________________________ 68
APPENDICES _________________________________________________________ 74 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW SCRIPT _____________________________________ 75
APPENDIX B: CODING OF LEARNERS __________________________________ 78 APPENDIX C: SPECTRUM FOR MULTIPLICATIVE PROFICIENCY ________ 81
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF INTERVENTION TASKS ______________________ 86
9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE & RATIONALE
INTRODUCTION
In this opening chapter I provide an outline of the research study. I begin with the rationale
for the study and the research problem I addressed. The significance and context of the
research are also described. The research aims, research questions and an overview of the
research methodology are sketched out. Finally the structure of this research thesis is
presented.
RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
South African education is faced with a huge challenge in mathematics as most learners
struggle with the basic concepts of numeracy (DOE, 2011). One of the main areas of
concern is multiplication. The South African Annual National Assessment (ANA) 2011
report and 2012 Eastern Cape Province grade 3 question by question analysis report
indicated that multiplication is one of the specific areas in mathematics where South African
learners performed poorly (DOE, 2011, DOE, 2012). This fact, plus my own experience as a
mathematics teacher motivated me to examine the need for appropriate interventions in the
teaching and learning of multiplication as interventions can be effective in reducing
disparities in mathematics achievement (Bobis, Clarke, Clarke, Thomas, Wright, Young-
Loveridge & Gould, 2005).
The early childhood years are crucial in forming the basics of mathematics. According to
Wright, Martland, Stafford and Stanger (2006), learners who are low-attaining in the early
years tend to remain so throughout their schooling and the knowledge gap between low
attaining learners tends to increase over the course of time. Having looked at a Mathematics
Recovery Programme (Wright et al., 2006), where one of its components is a mathematical
intervention on multiplicative reasoning I saw that such a programme had the potential to
assist in going some way towards addressing the problem.
10
At a recent Early Childhood Development conference in Grahamstown (September 2012)
which I attended, there was a discussion with Bob Wright regarding what it would mean to
use the Mathematics Recovery (MR) Programme in a group context rather than on a one-to-
one basis. It was mentioned that in the South African context, due to lack of resources, it
would not be feasible to use the programme as an individually focussed intervention the
way it has been used successfully in other countries. Bob Wright responded that research
looking at using it in a group setting would be valuable.
It is thus my aim to explore the use of the Wright et. al. (2006) MR programme with a group
of learners; with the hope that this study could point to the possibility of using the MR
programme in whole class situations and open up further avenues for research.
The MR programme has been used and tested in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the
United States (Wright, 2003). To date, it has not been widely researched in the South
African context, although this is beginning to change. See for example Graven and Stott,
(2012a); Stott and Graven (2013a); Wietz (2012). This research aims to contribute towards
filling this gap in the MR programme literature.
In addition, my study aims to contribute to the body of research in primary numeracy
education since this is an under-researched in South Africa (Venkat & Graven, 2013). I am
a part time Masters student in Rhodes University within the South African Numeracy Chair
project which is supported by the First Rand Foundation, Anglo American Chairman’s fund,
the Department of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation. The
South African Numeracy Chair Project focuses on research and development aimed at
improving the quality of numeracy teaching at primary level and improving learner
performance in primary schools.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
My experience in the classroom confirms that learners experience difficulties with
multiplication. I have observed that when working with multiplication, my Grade 5 learners
are still counting visible objects in ones. Some learners, when performing multiplication
11
tasks draw circles or small lines for counting and some just add the numbers. This attests to
the fact that their multiplicative reasoning is not fully developed.
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
South Africa faces many educational challenges; it has been reported as underperforming
when compared to other countries (Howie, 2004; Maree, Aldous, Hattingh, Swanepoel &
Linde, 2006). According to the International Association for Evaluation of Education
Achievement (IEA), South Africa was the lowest performing amongst the developing
countries (DOE, 2011 p. 34).
Working with the information from the recent report on the analysis of the 2012 Annual
National Assessments (ANAs), (DOE, 2012) the results clearly show that multiplication is
one of the specific areas in mathematics where South African learners perform poorly. A
question-by-question analysis of the 2012 Eastern Cape Provincial performance reveals that
only 26% of learners got the multiplication problems correct (DOE, 2012).
In the 2010 State of the National Address, the South African President stated that the
education system plays a vital role in improving productivity and mentioned that children
and youth need to be better prepared by their schools to read, write, think critically and
solve numerical problems. His speech was based on the foundations laid down in the
curriculum where it is clearly stated that the education system must enable all learners to
achieve to their maximum ability and the learners should be able to reflect and explore a
variety of strategies to learn more effectively (DOE, 2002).
Kilpatrick, Swafford and Findell (2001), in their model of mathematics learning argue that
mathematics education should focus on the ways in which learners represent and connect
mathematical knowledge, the ways in which they understand mathematical ideas and use
them in solving problems. This focus is necessary because learning with understanding is
argued to be more powerful than simply memorizing.
My concern as a Grade 5 teacher focuses particularly on the poor multiplicative
understanding of learners coming from Grade 4. Teaching multiplicative reasoning begins
in Grade 1 as indicated in the National Curriculum Statement (DOE, 2002) and progresses
12
across the grades. This corresponds with Wright, Martland and Stafford (2006) Mathematics
Recovery Programme where learners improve their multiplicative reasoning across all
levels.
Graven (2011) argues that after school smaller group sessions with learners provide rich
opportunities for the development of more participatory identities. She argues that these are
potentially powerful spaces for remediation work especially with learners from
disadvantaged backgrounds. It is partly for these reasons that I chose to research learners
multiplicative thinking and progress within an after school environment. Stott & Graven
(2013c) drawing on their earlier Graven & Stott (2012b) work provide the following
summary table of contrasting opportunities for working with learners in a classroom versus
an after school environment such as a club. Figure 1.1 below illustrates this contrast.
Figure 1.1: Contrasted classroom and club environments (Stott & Graven, 2013c, p. 2)
13
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to inform teaching in my school and to find ways to support
primary school teachers at large in developing the strategies to teach and remediate
multiplication reasoning. The study tests the possible effectiveness of the use of the
multiplicative aspect of the MR programme in a South African context. In addressing the
problem the following research questions will be examined.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed by the learners? 2. How effective will the use of the Mathematics Recovery programme be in a South
African context and implemented to a group of learners?
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
An interpretive research paradigm was used to investigate multiplicative thinking and ways
to support and to remediate the learning of multiplication.
I used a qualitative case study approach on five Grade 4 learners in my school. Lietz,
Langer and Furman (2006) explain that a qualitative method focuses on the co-construction
of meaning between the researcher and the participants. It represents the meaning of its
participants and acknowledges the role of social construction in establishing meaning. These
learners were invited to participate in an after-school intervention aimed at supporting and
remediating multiplicative reasoning.
For data collection I conducted Wright et. al.’s (2006) individual orally administered
interviews to assess the learners’ level of multiplication reasoning. I later analysed the
learners’ strategies when they responded to the pre and post interview assessment as well as
the interview assessments. Wright et al.’s (2006) interviews have been tested for validity
and reliability but my analysis was cross checked by my supervisor and co-supervisor in
order to support inter-rater reliability.
14
In order to comply with the ethical requirements of any research project, permission was
requested and granted from the principal, teachers and parents of the learners in the Grade 4
class. Consent forms were signed allowing for learner participation, and I undertook to use
pseudonyms in the research to protect the confidentiality of the information collected. I
explained to the learners that they could withdraw from the intervention and / or research at
any point.
In terms of giving something back in lieu of this opportunity to conduct research, I
undertook to share my research findings with other teachers at my school and following my
research I have offered to provide a series of voluntary after school sessions focused on
supporting the development of multiplicative reasoning for all Grade 4 learners.
OUTLINE OF THIS THESIS
This study consists of five chapters. In this section I have outlined the structure of the study
as well as presenting the purpose and rationale of the study.
Chapter Two reviews firstly the historical and contextual framework and secondly, provides
a perspective on learning using constructivism as the paradigm underlying this intervention.
Thirdly, literature relevant to this study on mathematical proficiency is described as a way
to think about mathematics learning in that it encompasses the key ways of knowing and
doing mathematics. Lastly the literature relevant to the context of this research on
supporting multiplicative reasoning and the Mathematics Recovery Programme is reviewed.
Chapter Three describes the research paradigm, research design and research methods
applied in this study. In this chapter I also provide an overview of the intervention
programme and my methods of analysis. Ethical and validity issues are also interrogated
here.
Chapter Four reports on the analysis and findings of the data obtained in this study and also
presents the major research findings as they relate to the research questions. This research,
being qualitative in nature, includes a quantifiable aspect in the analysis of the learners’
levels for pre assessment and post assessment and learners methods for pre and post
assessment.
15
Chapter Five concludes the study by summarising the discussion and focusing on the key
contributions of the study. Additionally I discuss the implications of the study and engage
with the limitations and opportunities for further research.
16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
My research focuses on the problem of numeracy in South Africa, and looks at ways to
improve the learner performance in number development particularly in multiplication. My
study will attempt to find ways to contribute to improving the poor learner performance in
numeracy in my district, province and perhaps in the country as a whole. In this chapter, I
will look at the history of the South African curriculum and its current state as it has been
informed by the Annual National Assessment, which is a measure of the progress of the
learners from grades one to six and nine. I will look at multiplicative reasoning and the
literature pertaining to it and at the strategies that the learners in my study may use in their
multiplicative reasoning. Finally, I discuss the Mathematics Recovery (MR) Programme,
how it has been successfully implemented in other countries and its structure.
HISTORICAL AND CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK
SOUTH AFRICAN CURRICULUM
South African education has been hindered by the apartheid era which brought with it
prolonged segregation by race, and also by language. Its legacy of division is still strong and
is often reinforced by economic inequalities. The South African schooling system has been
making a conscious effort to heal the division by providing opportunities that will break
down the deep inequalities that still prevail in the society. The South African curriculum
aims to ensure that children acquire and apply knowledge and skills in ways that are
meaningful to their own lives, creating learners who are able to identify and solve problems
and make decisions using critical and creative thinking. Since 1994 South Africa has tried to
improve the implementation of the curriculum by repackaging the curriculum in various
ways in order to improve the quality of teaching and learning. The current curriculum which
is the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) is regarded as having
17
simplified and made clear content coverage (Graven, Venkat, Westaway & Tshesane,
2013).
The South African curriculum aims at ensuring that children acquire and apply knowledge,
skills and values necessary for self-fulfilment and participation in society. For people to
participate effectively in society they must know basic mathematics. Mathematics is
therefore regarded as a very powerful “gate keeper”. It is critical for children to develop
strong number sense, to be able to perform basic operations, to know the basic number facts
and to perform mental arithmetic with confidence (DOE, 2002). For children to use and
apply the mathematics they learn at school they need to experience mathematics as a
meaningful, interesting and worthwhile activity. By improving performance in mathematics,
the learners will benefit from a higher quality of education and the nation as a whole will
benefit (DOE, 2002).
SOUTH AFRICAN LEARNER PERFORMANCE ON MATHEMATICS
South Africa participated in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) in 2003 and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring
Educational Quality (SACMEQ) in 2002 and 2007. The results of both national and
international studies show that South African did not achieve the required international
average scores and was placed at the bottom of the lists. The results of the assessment
revealed that more emphasis is placed on children being able to think mathematically than
on children being able to calculate (Howie, 2004; Maree, Aldous, Hattingh, Swanepoel &
Linde, 2006).
The top priority for the South African government on which the Department of Basic
Education (DBE) has to deliver is to improve the quality of basic education. The Annual
National Assessment (ANA) is a critical measure to assess the progress in learner
achievement. Poor performance of learners in numeracy has been an on-going problem in
South Africa. South Africa’s Systematic Evaluation programme which tested Grade 3
learners using a standardised test in 2007 and found that the performance of learners in
mathematics was at 43 percent (DOE, 2012). The key problems that were identified
appeared to be in the classroom, the incapacity of teachers to identify and apply appropriate
18
teaching methods, teachers with insufficient training and learners who were given too few
opportunities to solve problems on their own. Lack of solid numeracy skills will hinder
learner’s effective learning in other fields of knowledge (DOE, 2011). Other factors that
contribute to poor performance are socio-economic factors, demographics and the historical
realities of South Africa. Learners in schools with high poverty levels perform poorly in
mathematics (DOE, 2012) and consistently achieve much lower learning outcomes than
their counter parts in the urban areas. Also in the predominantly rural and historically
disadvantaged provinces there is evidence of poor learner achievement. The school where I
teach has been affected by a shortage of classrooms and since it started in 2005 until 2011, it
has been operating on double shifts with teaching of Foundation Phase in the morning and
Intermediate and Senior Phases in the afternoon. Notional teaching time was thus a
problem and the lack of infrastructure contributes to the poor learner performance.
The South African government has introduced many intervention strategies with regard to
poor mathematics performance (DOE, 2012). The introduction of Foundations for Learning
(FFL) in 2008 to improve mathematics represented a major shift towards providing better
methodology and guidance to teachers and ensuring the learners have the materials they
need. The National Department of Basic Education (DBE) workbooks were introduced to
support the quality of teaching and learning. In 2008 and 2009 trials runs of the Annual
National Assessment (ANA) were conducted with a special focus on exposing teachers to
better assessment practices and to monitor the extent to which the outcomes of improving
the quality and the levels of education are achieved.
The 2011 ANA provided the first national baseline to benchmark annual targets and
achievement of 60 percent learner attainment by 2014. It produced sufficiently standardized
data in order to allow for the analysis that aimed to enable provinces and districts to support
the schools at Foundation Phase.
The key findings were that learners displayed poor computational skills in solving problems
involving multiplication of two-digit by one-digit numbers, with only 35 percent of learners
in Grade 3 and 40 percent in Grade 4 in the Eastern Cape showing competency (DOE,
2012). Supporting this, Kilpatrick et al. (2001) suggest that mathematics education should
focus on the ways in which learners represent and connect mathematical knowledge, the
19
ways in which they understand mathematical ideas and use them in solving problems. In the
ANA’s learners revealed an inability to translate problems that are posed in words and to
write the problems out in various ways to enable them to solve the problem using
mathematical techniques. In a question-by-question analysis of the 2012 Eastern Cape
Provincial performance reveals that a mere 26% of learners got the multiplication problems
correct (DOE, 2012). Realising that this problem was systemic from the Foundation Phase
onwards, the Basic Education Department has focused on improving the schooling in the
Foundation Phase.
As a Grade 5 teacher in my school I found that many learners are particularly poor in
numeracy especially in multiplication, which indicates perhaps that the learners lack the
required foundations in mathematics. I found that my learners struggle with multiplication.
Multiplicative teaching is introduced in the early grades at the beginning of Grade 1 as
repeated addition as indicated in the National Curriculum Statement (DOE, 2002) and
continues up to Grade 3. At that stage learners should have developed more efficient
strategies for calculations, which would indicate that they are progressing across the grades.
The multiplication tables are stressed in Grade 3. In Clark and Kamii’s (1996) study it was
noted that multiplicative thinking appears in Grade 2 and multiplication tables are stressed
in Grade 3. They also pointed out that learners should not be given multiplication that they
cannot do, but should be allowed to solve the problem on their own. In their view they
highlighted the point that if a teacher is to teach multiplication they must first understand
the nature of the multiplicative thinking of the learners. It is evident that my learners in my
class lack the ability to make the shift from concrete counting based strategies to more
abstract strategies, i.e. learners cannot find the answer to a multiplication problem without
using concrete objects (either counting with fingers or using tallies or small circles).
20
Learners seem to lack multiplicative reasoning strategies. As a lead teacher working closely
with the district I noticed that the problem does not only apply to my school it seems the
district is experiencing the same problem when it comes to multiplication. For this reason,
my research is therefore grounded on an eagerness to find strategies that could help to
improve the multiplicative reasoning of the learners.
Having looked at the Mathematics Recovery (MR) Programme designed by Wright et al.
(2006) it seemed to have the potential to help to address the problem. It is thus my aim to
explore the use of the MR programme with a group of learners; with the intention that this
study could also point to the possibility of using the MR programme in whole class
situations, to demonstrate that MR as a programme helps in number early learning and to
open up further avenues for research in both South Africa and internationally.
MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY
As discussed earlier, South African education needs to improve mathematics education
especially in the early years of schooling to enable learners to think critically and solve
numerical problems. Kilpatrick et al. (2001) used the term mathematical proficiency to
capture what it means to learn mathematics successfully. Mathematical proficiency provides
a way to think about mathematics learning in that it encompasses the keys of knowing and
doing mathematics. For them mathematical proficiency indicates learners who understand
basic concepts, are fluent in performing basic operations, exercise a selection of strategic
knowledge, reason clearly and flexibly, and maintain a positive outlook toward
mathematics. The five interwoven strands of mathematical proficiency are thus:
• Conceptual understanding:
an integrated and functional grasp of mathematical ideas;
• Procedural fluency:
a knowledge of procedures, when to use them, skills and flexibility in using them
accurately and efficiently;
• Strategic competence:
the ability to formulate mathematical problems, represent them and solve them;
21
• Adaptive reasoning:
the ability to think logically about the relationships amongst concepts and situations
and to justify and prove the correctness of mathematical procedures;
• Productive deposition:
the ability to see sense in mathematics, seeing it as useful, worthwhile and encourage
learners to believe that they are capable of learning it.
Kilpatrick et al. (2001) use these strands of mathematical proficiency in an integrated
manner, so that each reinforces the others. Askew (2013) reinforces the integration of the
strands by indicating that fluency in calculation and reasoning about the number system are
mutually entwined. If all the strands are involved in teaching and learning it will assist in
developing multiplicative reasoning in learners. Learners will acquire higher levels of
mathematical proficiency when they have the opportunity to use mathematics to solve
multiplication problems fluently. This perspective on proficiency resonates strongly with
my aim to explore how learners develop their fluency in strategies when responding to
interview questions based on multiplicative reasoning.
PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING
My research will be framed by a constructivist view of learning. Constructivism draws on
the developmental work of Piaget (1977) who asserts that learning occurs by an active
construction of meaning. Constructivism embodies the metaphor of learning as construction
of knowledge which results from the process of making sense of experience. Piaget (1985),
concerned with the way children construct knowledge, recognized the importance of the
self-regulation process in individual learning. Anghileri (1989) explains that during the
construction of knowledge the learner’s skills are integrated simultaneously in working
memory.
In constructivism, learning is a cognitive re-organization of thinking which involves a
structural shift in cognition. The learner has to organize their thinking, make sense of the
new knowledge and accommodate it in order to achieve a higher level of thinking.
Constructivism's central idea is that human learning is constructed, that learners build new
knowledge upon the foundation of previous learning. Fosnot (2003) explained that in the
22
constructivist theory of learning, learners do not take in and absorb information, rather they
interpret, organize, and infer about it with the cognitive structures they have previously
constructed. Learning occurs when learners are actively involved in a process of meaning
making by cognitive re-ordering of new concepts with prior concepts by reflecting on their
actions therefore knowledge is constructed rather than passively received.
Von Glasersfeld (1989) emphasises the point that learners should construct their own
understanding and that they do not simply mirror and reflect what they read. In
constructivism, knowledge is constructed from experience, that learning is a personal
interpretation of the world and an active on-going process. Piaget (1985) believed that the
cognitive development in children depended on the experience with their physical and social
environment. Conceptual growth comes from the negotiation of meaning, the sharing of
multiple perspectives and the changing of our internal representations through collaborative
learning. Anghileri (1989) refers to the process of learning mathematics as active meaning
making. In the constructivist theory of learning learners search for the pattern, raise
questions; construct their own models, and the big ideas and strategies that the learners
demonstrate are discussed.
Fosnot (2003) refers to a ‘landscape of learning’ which is the journey of cognitive
development comprised of big ideas, strategies and models. Learners need to be encouraged
to share their big ideas and strategies and during this process their schema are developed,
modified or reinforced through accommodation and assimilation. Sharing their strategies
promotes confidence and a positive disposition is developed (Kilpatrick et al., 2001). Fosnot
(2003) suggested that mathematics classrooms should be like a workshop that encompasses
the model of constructivism based reflection and inquiry, generalization and problem
discourse where learners are actively involved in their process constructing knowledge.
Wright (2003) also supports that classroom practices based on constructivism demands that
the teacher assists the learners in their understanding of the content to be learnt and helps
the learner to make their own generalization as they explore problems in the classroom. A
teacher is referred to as a facilitator who provides guidance and creates the environment
necessary for the learners to question and reach their own conclusions, not to lead children
23
to solutions, but to monitor and ask the questions. A facilitator must provide opportunities to
investigate the adequacy of learner’s present understandings.
Constructivists believe that learners need to be challenged with tasks that lie just beyond
their level of mastery. This increases motivation and builds on their previous successes.
Constructivism says that in terms of the sequencing of subject matter, the basic ideas of a
topic should first be introduced before being built on further (Sullivan, 2011). Fosnot
(2003) explains that the big ideas and strategies serve as important landmarks for the
teachers to use as they plan the journey of development with the learners. As they move on
the same path, their development depends on individual differences, hence they have their
own trajectories and the teacher needs to acknowledge the difference in learner’s thinking
(Kühne, Lombart, & Moodley, 2013). When children discover patterns and relationships
themselves, they are more likely to understand and remember the concept being developed.
The Mathematics Recovery Programme has been designed from a constructivism
perspective of learning and it allows the learners to explore in order to mathematise.
Mathematisation is a step in the journey to construct the mental maps that will eventually
become tools for thinking. According to Fosnot (2003) mathematics should be thought of as
a human activity of mathematizing, not as a discipline of structures to be transmitted,
discovered but schematizing, structuring and modelling the world mathematically. Wright
(2003) and Wright et al. (2006) have based their framework for assessing multiplicative
reasoning (and number knowledge) and their MR programme on the constructivist view of
learning.
MULTIPLICATIVE REASONING
Importance and issues
In the last decade or so a number of researchers have written about multiplicative reasoning.
See for example (Jacob & Willis, 2003; Mulligan, 2002; Fosnot & Dolk, 2009).
Multiplicative reasoning is characterised by a capacity to work flexibly and efficiently with
an extended range of numbers for example, larger whole numbers. It requires the ability to
recognise and use strategies to solve a range of problems involving multiplication or
24
division (Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 1997). The learner must have the means to
communicate multiplication effectively in a variety of ways for example, words, diagrams
and symbolic expressions.
Mulligan (2002) highlighted the importance of multiplicative reasoning in that it is essential
in the development of concepts and processes such as ratio and proportion, it is therefore
imperative to develop multiplicative structures in the early years so as not to impede the
general mathematical development of learners in secondary school. Vergnuad (1983 cited in
Clark and Kamii, 1996) indicated that learners who have difficulty with computing often
have a problem with multiplication. Teachers need to have mental image of a developmental
trajectory along which they could expect children to develop and to understand the nature of
multiplicative thinking in order to support children along the path of gradual sophisticated
multiplicative reasoning (Wright et al., 2006).
What is multiplication?
When honing in on multiplication reasoning researchers have contrasting ideas for
explaining multiplication; some researchers consider multiplication as a faster way of doing
repeated addition while others say that repeated addition is an implicit, unconscious and
primitive intuitive model for multiplication (Clark & Kamii, 1996). (Anghileri, 1989)
indicated that addition forms the basis of multiplication, addition theory processes support
the learner to transfer from counting meaning to the cardinal meaning. When referring to
multiplication, Clark and Kamii (1996) used Piaget’s 1987 work as a point of reference
which shows that multiplication is not just a faster way of doing addition but is an operation
that requires higher-order multiplicative thinking that children construct out of their ability
to think additively. Piaget differentiated addition from multiplication in that addition is the
construction of number which is accomplished by the repeated addition of ones, whereas
multiplication is a more complex operation that is constructed out of addition at a higher
level of abstraction based on a conceptual pattern in the mind which is a schema.
The level of abstraction shows the developmental trajectory of learners being able to solve
problems from a concrete level of using manipulative to an entirely abstract level where the
learner uses verbal arithmetic. Anghileri (1989) added that for multiplication a learner must
25
possess some schema for keeping track of the numerosity of the group to be repeated.
Similarly, Clark and Kamii (1996) state that multiplication requires the construction of new
elements through reflexive abstraction, in abstraction the parts together becomes the new
whole and multiplicative structures are seen as a conceptual field that involves many
interconnected concepts. Multiplication uses a dimensional model based on the notion of
ratio and that multiplication structures rely on addition structures, but they have their own
intrinsic organization which is not reducible to additive structures.
Anghileri uses the term of learners being “meaning makers” in the process of learning
mathematics where construction of abstract composite units takes place (Anghileri, 1989,
p.367). Meaning is understood to be the result of humans setting up relationship, reflecting
on their actions, and modelling and constructing meaning. During meaning making some
learners showed the recognition of the composite nature of a number, while others used one
finger to tally each group that they counted, whereas some showed unitary counting which
develops to rhythmic counting in groups and later number pattern. When doing rhythmic
counting some interim numbers are progressively internalized which can be detected by
whispering, a silent mouthed acknowledgement, which indicates that counting has
happened. In the number pattern stage learners relate cardinality of the union of sets. It
needs less mental processing and the number procedure involves only two simultaneous
counts.
To understand multiplication the following pieces of information need to be coordinated:
the number of elements in each group, how many groups and the process for executing the
product. The initial idea that needs to be developed for multiplicative reasoning is making
and naming equal groups. There are a number of ways that this can be done but two of the
most useful ways appear to be counting large collections efficiently for example, by twos,
fives or tens and organizing the count and systematically sharing collections (Mulligan &
Mitchelmore, 1997). The issue of the language and recording associated with this idea is
also important. Talking about “groups of” or “lots of” can get in the way of understanding
what is going on, which is actually a count of a count. This explains to some extent why this
idea can be so difficult for some children who are expected to move from one-to-one counts
like one, two, three …to counting in a one-to-many count like 1 three, 2 threes, 3 threes
26
(Mulligan, 2002). Recent research by Anghileri (1989) reported the results of her
observations of the behaviours and successful solution strategies of learners as they carried
out multiplication tasks is that learners must have mathematical understanding prior to the
formal instruction which is grounded by everyday situations to which the children have
been exposed and she refers to this as a “framework of knowledge” (Anghileri, 1989,
p.367).
Multiplicative reasoning
Many learners have an informal understanding of multiplication as adding the same things
together. Anghileri (1989) indicated that learner’s early multiplicative reasoning results
from cognitive re-organization of learner’s counting to increasingly sophisticated groups to
abstract composite units. Learners need to develop strategies that lead to more efficient
mental strategies that build on from the known, e.g. doubling and addition strategies. For
developing multiplicative reasoning, Mulligan (2002) has identified counting, subitising,
grouping, partitioning and sharing as essential elements of multiplicative structure. Fosnot
and Dolk (2009) and Fosnot (2003) present some strategies which they term “Big Ideas”.
These are characteristic of a shift in perspective, in logic and paradigmatic shifts in
reasoning strategies which include skip counting, using a doubling strategy, using and
understanding the distributive and commutative properties. Anghileri (1989) described how
learners should develop multiplicative reasoning in that they progress in stages from unitary
counting or counting by ones, skip counting and repeated addition by understanding
multiplication facts and their application. Mulligan (2002) highlighted that learners move
from one-to-one counting, additive composition, many-to-one counting, multiplicative
relations, and operating on the operators. Learner’s should establish the value of equal
groups by exploring more efficient strategies for counting large collections using composite
units and sharing collections equally items in groups (1 three, 2 threes, 3 threes, 4 threes ...),
they focus on the number in the group (3 ones, 3 twos, 3 threes, 3 fours), on the number of
groups (three groups of fives) and should be able to rename the number of groups e.g. 3
fours can be the same as 4 threes which is twelve (Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 1997).
27
Mulligan (2002) showed multiplicative reasoning as a mathematical structure which is
described as spatial organization of objects such as arrays and squares, and that these are
ways of promoting multiplicative reasoning where the whole and equal groups are
reinforced by visual images.
My understanding of multiplicative reasoning is guided by the five levels detailed by
Wright et al. (2006) which are related to equal grouping, counting strategies include
rhythmic, double, skip counting where a learner is simultaneously aware of both the
composite and unitary aspects. These levels are discussed in detail in the following sections.
EARLY NUMERACY INTERVENTION
Learners who have difficulty with number sense will have a problem in mathematics
progression (Askew, 2013) and therefore need early intervention to alleviate the problem. In
support of this, Wright et al. (2006) described a need for early numeracy intervention of
learners at an early age because difficulty in numeracy can affect performance even in other
aspect of the curriculum. Intervention in the early childhood years can be effective in
reducing disparities in mathematics achievement (Bobis et al., 2005).
The early years of schooling are a crucial period to foster the basic skills and love for
numeracy (DOE, 2011). For learners to be successful in later mathematics activities and to
use mathematics effectively in life, they must have a sound understanding of elementary
mathematics concepts, and to develop a positive attitude towards the learning of
mathematics, and the belief that an understanding of mathematics is attainable (DOE, 2011).
Early intervention requires a teacher to play a vital role in the learner’s development, and it
needs to be carefully planned and to cater for learners from different backgrounds.
Learners with a sound foundation in mathematics develop cognitive abilities such as
patterns, reasoning, processing speed and working memory for undertaking mathematics
(Anghileri, 1989). Early intervention can prevent the development of negative attitudes and
mathematical anxiety in learners and promotes a productive or positive mathematical
disposition.
28
One such programme of intervention is that designed by Wright et al. (2006). I describe this
below.
MATHEMATICS RECOVERY PROGRAMME
The notion of early intervention in numeracy can be problematic for educators if they are
unable to diagnose what the source of the learner’s difficulties is. Teachers need a
diagnostic tool to identify the specific problems that they are experiencing with learners and
one which can be used to profile learner strengths and weaknesses, a tool that will target
particular learner’s misconceptions and less sophisticated strategies. Wright et al. (2006)
have developed the Mathematics Recovery (MR) programme framework as a learning
pathway in an effort to increase learner achievement in number concepts and to provide
tools such as these. Specifically, the MR programme includes assessment interviews
(including tasks and schedules), a teaching framework and teaching resources and a learning
progression model for early number learning.
The MR programme has been applied to a multitude of situations and contexts (Wright et
al., 2006). Although Wright et al.’s (2006) MR approach was originally created for
intervention in number learning and focused mainly on students in the second year of school
(six and seven year olds), the programme has since been extended to include both early and
advanced multiplication and division. I will however, only focus on the multiplication
aspect as it is my main concern and the focus of this study. The implementation of the
multiplication aspect of the MR programme will assist in addressing my second research
question: How effective will the use of the Mathematics Recovery Programme be in the
South African context? The main focus in my research is on assessment and teaching in the
form of an intervention in multiplication.
Countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States have used the
Mathematics Recovery Programme and have found that it has provided opportunities for
developing confident and capable mathematics in learners in the early years of schooling
(Bobis et al., 2005). Wright (2003) explains that the MR Programme as a form intervention
accords strongly in terms of both theory and practice with the current cutting-edge
approaches in classroom teaching. The underlying theory and approaches of the programme
29
are equally as applicable to average and able learners as to those who are experiencing
learning difficulties. The MR Programme is grounded by constructivist teaching
experiments where learners construct their own knowledge. The methodology used in the
Mathematics Recovery Programme was designed by Steffe (1992, cited in Wright, 2003).
The MR programme involves intensive, individualized teaching and is an approach to early
number learning that integrates interview-based assessment and a model of early number
learning. The assessment allows the teacher to document a learner’s current knowledge and
plan subsequent instruction (Wright, 2003).
THE FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT AND LEARNING
As indicated above, the MR Programme includes assessment interviews (including tasks
and schedules), a teaching framework and teaching resources and a learning progression
model for early number learning. I will discuss each of these elements below.
MR Programme: Learning Framework in Number (LFIN)
The learning framework (called the Learning Framework in Number or LFIN) provides
essential guidance for assessment and teaching in early number. The use of a framework is
to enable profiling of student’s current knowledge and levels that indicate numeracy
development of learner’s knowledge (Wright et at., 2006).
According to Wright et al (2006), for a learner to be able to develop multiplicative
reasoning he must go through different stages of cognitive development. Wright et al.’s
(2006) levels of assessing multiplicative reasoning correspond with Piaget’s development
stages which proposes four key stages: sensory-motor (concrete objects), pre-operational
(mastery of symbols), concrete (how to reason) and formal operation (formal logic) where
learners in each stage think and reason differently.
The following five levels in Early Multiplication in the LFIN will assist me in assessing the
multiplicative thinking levels of my sample of learners:
• Level 1: Initial Group
a learner uses perceptual thinking to establish the numerosity of collections of equal
30
groups when items are visible and counts by ones not in multiples, i.e. the child uses
perceptual counting to make groups of specified size from a collection of items, the
learner does not count in multiples.
• Level 2: Perceptual Counting in Multiples
a learner uses multiplicative counting strategies to count visible items in equal groups
that involve counting in multiples. Counting strategies include rhythmic, double, skip
counting; the child relies on visible items.
• Level 3: Figurative Composite Grouping
a learner uses multiplicative counting strategies to count items in equal groups in cases
where the individual items are not visible.
• Level 4: Repeated Abstract Composite Grouping
the learner counts composite units in repeated addition or subtraction, that is, uses the
composite units a specified number of times. The learner is simultaneously aware of
both the composite and unitary aspects.
• Level 5: Multiplication as Operations
a learner can regard both the number in each group as a composite unit, and can
immediately recall many basic facts for multiplication and division. A learner is able to
use a known fact to work out an unknown fact, the learner use 3 x 6 = 18 to work out 18
÷ 3.
Assigning learners to these levels in pre and post assessment interviews will help me to
answer research question one in determining what level of multiplicative reasoning is
displayed by the learners.
In my research I used these five levels to assess the multiplicative reasoning of the learners I
have sampled and will use the recording schedule proposed by Wright et al. (2006) which I
discuss in Chapter Three. Having understood the level of understanding of the learners the
teacher needs to intervene by developing teaching sequences that will link to learner’s
current understanding of mathematical reasoning. The learning framework indicates where
to take the learner in terms of remediating multiplicative reasoning.
31
MR Programme: Assessment Interviews
Interviews that follow a schedule of set procedures are used in assessing the learner. These
interviews have a social aspect where the teacher provides a supporting and encouraging
environment. According to Wright, the interview-based assessment has two purposes:
“Firstly, it should provide a rich, detailed description of the student's current
knowledge of early number. This rich picture is necessarily in terms of the aspects
of early number knowledge that are reflected on the schedule of assessment tasks.
Secondly, the assessment should lead to the determination of level of a learner by
looking on the relevant levels in the framework of assessment and learning”
(Wright, 2003, p.8).
Wright et al. (2006) describe their assessment “as a diagnostic assessment that aims to
provide extensive and detailed information about the child‘s numerical knowledge” (p. 30).
Diagnostic assessment involves a teacher or a mediator assessing a child‘s understanding of
a concept, by looking at the strategies the child uses to find the answer. The teacher is not
only interested in the answer of the child, but also in the methods that the child uses to get
the answer. The assessment aims to provide more formative ways of addressing problems in
early numeracy. The MR assessment takes the form of an orally conducted interview. The
instrument is administered to each individual learner in a one-to-one interview lasting
between 45 to 60 minutes (Wright et at., 2006).
The interview results do not result in scoring but focus rather on understanding the
strategies used by learners when solving number problems. Further, they aim to promote
mental computational strategies. Some of the items on the assessment are structured in such
a way that if a learner answers the question correctly, the assessment leads on to a more
advanced question. The aim of the assessment is to profile the learner and to find out what
level a learner operates at based on the strategies the learner uses to find the answer.
Through the use of profiling, a model of student development can be constructed which will
reveal what form of intervention is necessary and which follow up instructional activities
can be applied. The assessment interviews contain a description of assessment tasks that are
32
closely linked to the levels on each model as indicated above. For my research I focused on
Early Multiplication.
Assigning learners to these levels in pre and post assessment interviews will help me to
answer research question one in terms of what level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed
by the learners?
MR Programme: Teaching Framework
Another key aspect of the MR programme is thus a comprehensive teaching framework that
is used for planning interventions that aim to remediate multiplicative reasoning.
The teaching framework takes account of the learner’s current knowledge in terms of the
LFIN and draws from a bank of instructional settings (resources and manipulatives) and
activities. The LFIN determines where the learner is developmentally and the teaching
framework indicates where to take the learner. MR teaching is informed by an initial
comprehensive assessment and on-going assessment through teaching where the teacher is
informed about the learner’s current knowledge and problem solving strategies.
MR teaching has the following guiding principles: the teaching approach is inquiry based
where a learner is presented with tasks which are problematic for them, so they are engaged
with problems when trying to solve them. Over an extended period the learner tries hard to
think about the solving strategies for a problem a process of cognitive re-organization and
anticipation occurs. On-going assessment plays a critical role through teaching which keeps
the teacher informed of the learner’s progress and supports the learner. Teaching is focused
on individual learner for extending learner’s current knowledge (Wright, 2003). The teacher
supports and builds on the strategies that the child demonstrates. Sufficient time is provided
to the learner to solve the problem where they will be engaged in thinking and encouraged
to reflect on the result of their thinking. The teacher continually assesses the learner’s
progress during the teaching session through careful observation and review of the teaching
sessions. I took these principles into account when planning interventions and during
interventions.
33
Within this framework, the key elements of teaching as stated by Wright (2003) are the
processes of micro-adjusting and scaffolding. He refers to micro adjusting as the on-going
process of presenting each task, which relates to the previous task. Scaffolding refers to the
provision of support in the form of access to materials or teacher modelling, which is
gradually withdrawn according to the student’s responses. I took these processes into
account when planning my interventions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this literature review chapter, I situated my study within the broader South African
context and reviewed a range of literature relating to multiplication. I elaborated on the
framework of mathematical proficiency, constructivism as a perspective of learning, the MR
programme including MR framework for assessment and learning.
In the next chapter I outline the research design and the methodology used in this research
which allowed the research questions to be addressed.
34
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the study is to inform mathematics teaching in my school and find ways to
support primary school teachers at large in developing the strategies to teach and remediate
multiplication reasoning. In addressing the problem the following research questions will be
examined.
1. What level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed by the learners?
2. How effective will the use of the Mathematics Recovery programme in the South
African context be when implemented to a group of learners?
This chapter describes the research design and methodology employed in this research study
and includes a discussion of the research sample, research methods, and sources of data,
data collection, data analysis, quality criteria (validity and reliability), ethical considerations
and the limitations of the study. Figure 3.1 outlines the presentation of the chapter.
Figure 3.1: Outline of the Research Design and Methodology
35
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study is guided by these research questions:
1. What level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed by the learners?
2. How effective will the use of the Mathematics Recovery programme be in the South
African context when implemented to a group of learners?
Table 3.2 below presents a summary of the research design and describes how the research
design links to the research questions.
Key Research Questions • What level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed by the learners?
• How effective will the use of the Mathematics Recovery programme be in the South African context when implemented to a group of learners?
Research Design of Study Case study (interpretive)
Nature of data collected Qualitative with some quantifiable aspects
AC
TIO
N P
LA
N
Data Collection Instruments
Individual learner interviews Participant-observer
Data Source Videos of interviews and intervention sessions Interview scripts Assessment schedules
Researcher journal
Data Analysis Time series analysis
Ethical Considerations Confidentiality and anonymity, informed consent
Strengths of Research To inform teaching in my school and find ways to support primary school teachers at large in developing the strategies to teach and remediate multiplication reasoning and using the MR programme of intervention.
Table 3.2: Research Design links Research Questions
36
SAMPLING In this study I used a purposively selected sample of six Grade 4 learners. To select these
learners I administered a basic written assessment instrument to a class of Grade 4’s which
specifically looked at assessing their knowledge and understanding of multiplication. This
class was a convenience sample as I used one of the Grade 4 classes in the school where I
was teaching. I used the scored results from the test to select six learners as my sample: two
top scoring learners, two middle scoring learners and the two bottom scoring learners. These
learners were invited to participate in an after school intervention programme aimed at
supporting and remediating multiplicative reasoning. One of the sampled learners was not
available for the interviews and for that reason; I had a final sample of five learners.
RESEARCHER
At the time of conducting this study I was employed at a school in the Eastern Cape as a
Grade 5 to 7 mathematics teacher. Therefore I brought to this research study an
understanding of the problems of mathematics in the primary school.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH PARADIGM
A qualitative, interpretive research paradigm was used to investigate multiplicative thinking
and ways to support and to remediate this.
It has been our view for some time that the processes of education, teaching and
learning are so complex and multifaceted that to focus only on cause and effect,
products and outcomes or correlations in research on schools is of limited value.
The complexity of education demands the use of many different research
techniques and models. The most productive approach we believe is a qualitative
one (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995, p. 25).
37
Since learners are unique they interpret things differently so I observed the meaning that the
learners constructed as they interacted with me in the application of the various recovery
strategies.
RESEARCH DESIGN: A CASE STUDY
I used a qualitative case study approach of five Grade 4 learners in my school. Lietz, Langer
and Furman (2006) explain that the qualitative method focuses on the co-construction of
meaning between the researcher and the participants. It represents the meaning of its
participants and acknowledges the role of social construction in establishing meaning. A
case study uses a small group in order to learn more about social realities in a particular
context. It allows the researcher to probe with the necessary depth and recognition of the
context and hopes to find out knowledge that will be applied to address the social problem
(Janse van Rensburg, 2001). Case study research enables one to arrive at an understanding
of a complex situation and it can add value to what is already known through previous
research. This is substantiated by Merriam (1998), who posits that “ investigators use a case
study design in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and its meaning for
those involved” (p.xii). Case study research is ideal for understanding and interpreting
observations of educational phenomena (Merriam, 1998). As is the case in this research
study, case study research generally answers questions of a “How?” nature.
RESEARCH METHOD
I use mostly qualitative methods with some quantifiable aspects to produce a rich data set.
Qualitative data was used in the pre-assessment and post assessment in relation to allocating
levels. The results of the pre-assessment were used to determine whether a need for such
interventions was necessary. They were also used to determine learner’s mathematical needs
with regard to multiplication. Those needs were then addressed by an intervention designed
on the MR programme principles. The results of the post assessment were compared with
the results of the pre-assessment, to determine whether the learners had progressed from one
level to another. Quantifiable and visual data in the form of graphs and matrices allowed
me to track changes in multiplicative proficiency over time, and to gain insight into whether
38
individual learners had progressed or not in the time between administrations of the
assessment instrument. Quantifiable data was recorded on an Excel spread sheet, which
was also used to create the graphs and matrices.
RESEARCH TIMESCALE The timeframe for the study was from March 2013 to April 2013 and focused on the use of
the MR programme starting with pre assessment, teaching using the intervention strategies
for multiplication and the post assessment. I carried out four intervention sessions over a
period of four weeks, with one session each week of approximately one hour in duration.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
One key aspect of the MR programme is the videotaping of assessment and teaching
sessions. Thus (Wright, 2003) argues:
The process of videotaping serves several fundamental and important purposes: first,
it is the basis of the distinctive approach to assessment (as described earlier) and it
provides permanent records of the assessment process. Second, teacher’s viewing
their own and colleagues' videotapes is a key component of teacher professional
development. Finally, videotaping in the way it is used in MR, is critical for teachers'
individual and collective professional learning (Wright, 2003, p. 11).
Videos taken by myself, focused on strategies used by the learners when engaged in
multiplication activities and the way learners responded to the oral tasks during the
interviews. The learners seemed comfortable with the use of this technology and the use of
video recording allowed myself as the researcher to focus on facilitating the interviews
whilst issues like gestures, body language and so on were recorded for later viewing.
39
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
I used three instruments to gather my data:
1. A pre and post assessment instrument based on Wright et al.’s (2006) individual orally
administered assessments in the form of interviews to assess the learners’ level of
multiplication reasoning.
2. A research journal
3. Reflection on videos
INTERVIEWS
The research interview can be understood as a two-person conversation initiated by the
interviewer for the purpose of gathering research-related information (Cohen & Manion
1980). While this definition of a research interview makes sense, it limits the possibility that
a research interview may have a dual purpose. “Rich data” is referred to as long-term
involvement and intensive interviews that will enable thick descriptions of what is going on
(Maxwell, 2004). This rich data in my study (Maxwell, 2004) was provided by video-
recorded interviews which gave me an in depth understanding of the issues learners in
Grade 4 have with multiplicative reasoning. The interviews lasted approximately 60 to 75
minutes for each learner.
The interviews were interesting conversations stimulated by a set of items and probes in
order to find the strategies used by the learners. Before the interviews I did a trial run with
my supervisor and co-supervisor on how to conduct the interviews and video record at the
same time.
All interviews were conducted individually in the classroom. If a learner gave an answer
instantly a probing question was asked. Learner responses were noted on an assessment
schedule based on Wright (2003) (see Appendix B) and were video recorded for later
analysis. The video-recording and noting of learner’s responses on the assessment schedule
would allow me to profile the learner in terms of the LFIN levels after the interview had
taken place. The assessment interviews focused on understanding the strategies and methods
used by learners when solving number problems during the interviews. Items in the
40
interview are structured in such a way that if a learner answers the item correctly, the
interview leads on to a more advanced item. Each set of interview items informs an LFIN
level at which the learners are operating. The LFIN assessment interviews helped me to
address both of my research questions in finding out what level a learner operated at based
on the strategies demonstrated by the learner to get the answer and to see the impact of the
MR on the learners.
Both interviews took the form of a structured, question-response interview. The LFIN items
are a fixed set of items as indicated in table 3.3 in a fixed order, and according to Breakwell
(1995), this constitutes a structured interview. She also states that research interviews
require a particularly systematic approach to data collection in order to maintain validity
and reliability (Breakwell, 1995). Wright et al. (2006) advised that the interviewer does not
change the items or the order of the items and I ensured that I followed this suggestion when
administering the interviews. As such the interview items were the same for both
interviews. I was not only interested in the answer provided, but also in the method that the
learner used to arrive at the answer. Both assessment interviews aimed at providing more
formative ways of addressing problems in multiplication.
The interview for multiplication consists of five major tasks. Table 3.3 indicates which
items fall under each task group and the focus of the task is explained.
INTERVIEW ITEMS
ITEM NUMBERS FOCUS OF THE TASKS / INTENDED STRATEGIES
Forming equal
groups 1a, b
Does the child make the groups by moving one counter at a
time or by moving multiples of counters?
Able to know the total in each group without counting.
The learner starts from one when checking the number in a
group.
Tasks involving
FNWS of multiples 2a, b, c, d
Checking whether the child has the FNWS in multiples and
where the sequence of skip counting begins to break down the
number in a group
Table 3.3: Interview tasks indicating intended learner strategies
41
Tasks involving
visible items in
arrays
3 a, b, c
Uses visible items arranged in arrays. Allows making a slight
movement of the counters constant with touching counters in
one to one correspondence activities. The task items are linked
with conservation and commutative principle in that reversing
the order of two factors does not change the product
Task involving
equal groups of
visible items
4a, b, c, d
(i), (ii)
The task emphases counting in multiples but in a different
context is checking the mode of counting. The child has to
first meet partition division and quotient division
Tasks involving
screened items 5a, b, c, d, e
Assessment task where items are screened and will see if the
child uses multiplicative counting strategies when they cannot
see the objects
The advanced tasks are shown overleaf.
ADVANCED INTERVIEW ITEMS
Tasks presented verbally
without visible or screened
items
1a, b, c, d Checking if the child can count in multiples by using
knowledge of abstract composite units. The learner is
able to recall or quickly derive many of the basic
facts and be aware of the communicative principle of
multiplication
Task of
model for
multiplication
and division
commutative
principle of
multiplication,
inverse
relationship
between
multiplication
and division
2a, b, c, d, e Tasks to exhibit composite units, understanding
commutative principle of multiplication, inverse
relationship between multiplication and division and
multiplication facts to derive division facts
Area
Multiplication 3
Check whether the learner reason in terms of a unit of
area
Table 3.3 continued: Interview tasks indicating intended learner strategies
42
RESEARCH JOURNAL
In my role as researcher, I observed learners whist facilitating intervention sessions. Cohen
et al. (2000, p. 305) point out that in observations, researcher roles can lie on a continuum.
At one end lies the complete participant, moving to the participant-as-observer, thence to
the observer-as-participant, and finally to the complete observer. In order to carry out these
observations, metaphorically I move from ‘complete participant’ to ‘participant-as-
observer’ and back again. As a participant-observer, a research journal served to consolidate
and record research ideas that emerged out of reflections from my research presentations
and intervention sessions as a teacher. I also recorded findings and observations after each
assessment interview I observed and when I had discussions with my supervisor and co-
supervisor.
REFLECTION ON VIDEOS
Reflecting on the videos helped me to analyse both the pre and post assessment interviews
using Wright et al.‘s (2006) framework. I began by noting overall performance on the two
assessments using quantifiable data based on levels and stages for the LFIN. Then I
compared the results of the two assessments and looked for differences and similarities
between the two.
Learners were allocated to levels and stages of the LFIN based on this analysis and using
the assessment schedule and video data. I used a descriptive narrative to describe each
learners pre and post assessment in detail.
In the next section, I explain how I planned the intervention programme.
OVERVIEW OF INTERVENTION PROGRAMME
I used the teaching programme described in Chapter Two and was guided by the principles
of teaching using the MR programme and the key elements (page 32). The intervention was
planned as a teaching approach where learners were engaged in thinking deeply to solve the
problems that challenged them. The teaching was informed by results of the pre assessment
interview and on-going assessment in each session.
43
For the intervention, I selected from the bank of teaching procedures and resources
suggested by Wright et al (2006) in their book. These varied depending on-going
observations of the learners’ development. The intervention was done as a whole group for
one hour once a week over the period of four weeks. Some examples of Wright et al.’s
(2006) task are shown below whilst the full range is available in Appendix D.
44
EQUAL GROUPS 1.1 Making equal groups
Learners are given 12 counters and are asked to make three groups with four in each group.
How many groups? / How many in each group?
1.2 Describing equal groups
Counters/ unifix cubes/ containers
Individuals
Each learner is given 10 counters and two containers, ask them to share it equally into the containers, how many counters in each containers?
Use the same activity but increase the number range
1.3 Combining and counting equal groups
Place out ten 2-dot cards, put each 2-dot card and let the learner count putting each card after the other.
Similar with three dot, four dot and five dot cards
1.4 Determining the number in an equal share
Resources: dots cards/ unifix cubes
Learners are given six counters. Share them amongst three people. How many will each get?
Use 10 and 2, 12 and 6, 18 and 3
1.5 Determining the number of equal groups
Resources: dots cards/ unifix cubes
Place out four 2-counter cards:
How many counters are there on each card?
How many cards are there?
How many counters are there altogether?
45
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS In this section I outline how I approached the analysis of data that I collected. I looked at:
• Preparing the data for analysis - Coding data by assigning numeric values
• Exploring the data - Visually inspecting data
PREPARING THE DATA FOR ANALYSIS
PROFILING OF LEARNERS
Analysis of the MR assessment interview involved reviewing the videotaped interviews in
conjunction with the written interview schedule for each learner. An explicit feature of the
MR assessment is that they are not only concerned with whether the answer is correct or
not, but also with how the learner arrives at the answer. Each interview was transcribed
using a coding system and a written summary of the assessment interview. For coding the
assessment I used Wright et al.’s (2006) coding system which is used to derive the
maximum information from the child’s performance in the assessment interview. The codes
indicated how the child responded and the way they gave answers and are shown in Table
3.4 below.
üü correct with certitude
ü correct
? ü needs time to think and correct
∧ omission of a number in FNWS
Red teacher prompt
?? needs time to think
xü initially incorrect and correct
Rev assessor revisit an item
IDK I don’t know
This coding also allowed me to allocate each child to a level or stage of the LFIN
framework for multiplication (the focus of this study) as indicated in table 4.1 (in Chapter
Four) and to address question one of my research. I analysed the videos of the interviews of
the five learners and coded each of them (see table 3.5 for an example of one learner). This
Table 3.4: Assessment schedule codes (Wright et al. (2006)
46
profiling provided me with a model of development of in multiplication for each learner in
my study and through which the teaching programme for this study (in the form of an
intervention) was designed. Table 3.5 shows an example of coding for Learner A. The
coding for the other learners is available in Appendix B.
ST
RA
TE
GIE
S
STR
AT
EG
IIE
S
Perceptual
counting by ones
Visible and count in multiples
Multiplicative strategies where
items are screened
Abstract composite and unitary aspect
Coordinate two composite units
TA
SK Q
UE
STIO
NS
1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 4d i
4d ii 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3
PRE
-ASS
ESS
ME
NT
R
ESP
ON
SES
ü ü ∧ üü üü üü ü ü ü ü üü xü ??
Revü
?ü ü ??
Rev
??
?ü ?? IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
POST
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
R
ESP
ON
SES
ü ü ü ü ü ü üü ü üü üü üü üü ü ü üü üü üü üü üü IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
NOTE: questions 1a to 2c are level-one questions with regards to the LFIN. In other words,
they are structured in such a way that the learner is expected to answer at that level.
Questions 2d to 4d are level-two questions. Here the learner can answer using a lower or a
higher-level strategy. Questions 5a to 5e and the tasks marked ‘advanced multiplication’ are
where learners are expected to answer using higher order level strategies.
Table 3.5: Example for Learner A: Assessment schedule
47
LEARNERS MULTIPLICATIVE PROFICIENCY
For analysis of multiplicative proficiency I quantified the qualitative data. Although the
interviews are not meant to result in scores (Wright, 2003) in South Africa researchers are
beginning to work with scores as a way of showing a picture of learner progress when
working with the MR programme. See for example Graven and Stott (2012a) and Stott and
Graven (2013b).
When using the same Wright et al interview tasks, Graven & Stott (2013b) explained that
although the oral interview instruments and scripts show the methods the learners used to
solve a task, coding responses simply as correct or incorrect, fails to reveal whether the
learner has used a more flexible method or is more fluent in answering a question. Thus
they developed an efficiency spectrum for procedural fluency that ranged from restricted /
constrained procedural fluency towards elaborated and fully flexible fluency.
The strategies that my learners used confirmed the notions of efficiency and fluency I have
coded and analysed in the oral interview and showed an overlap of learner
strategies/responses. My data displayed a range of responses from restricted / constrained
procedural fluency towards elaborated and fully flexible fluency. This resonated with my
own sense that learner’s multiplicative proficiency or fluency needed to captured in its own
right. Thus I adapted Graven & Stott’s (2013b) spectrum for procedural fluency into
multiplicative spectrums for each task in the interview to help me understand learner
progress. This progress would be evident when learners moved to the middle or upper end
of the spectrum. Figure 3.6 below shows my adapted spectrum of multiplicative proficiency.
Constrained method Fluent method Flexible fluency Inefficient (I) Somewhere in between (IE) Efficient (E)
(Adapted from: Graven & Stott, 2013b)
Figure 3.6: Spectrum of multiplicative proficiency for Constrained, Fluent and Flexible fluency
48
Firstly, for each task, I used the LFIN levels to determine where the strategy would fall on
the spectrum. For each learner, I mapped the methods they used to answer questions onto
the task spectrum. (The full set of matrices is available in Appendix C.) I counted the
number of different methods they used. I then worked out their predominant method by
comparing the values in the matrix.
EXPLORING THE DATA
LFIN Assessment
In the LFIN assessment, the strategy the child uses to answer a question demonstrates the
level of development of his or her conceptual multiplicative understanding. The questions in
the LFIN assessment are structured to cover a wide range of problem types and number
ranges in order to ascertain the extent to which learners can apply more or less abstract
strategies (see table appendix A). As I mentioned previously, profiling learner knowledge in
this way formed a basis for the intervention used in this study, targeted to teach at each
learner’s current level of knowledge and strategies. LFIN levels 1 to 5 were allocated based
on the strategy used by the learners to solve tasks in the pre and post assessments.
In this I was guided by Wright et al. (2006) as follows: For the learner to be in level 1 she or
he must establish the numerosity of a collection of equal groups when items are visible and
counts by ones when doing so. To be in level 2, a learner is able to count in multiples when
items are visible. For level 3, a learner is able to count in multiples when items are invisible.
Level 4 can demonstrate the repeated abstract composite grouping, by counting composite
units in repeated addition or subtraction using the composite a specified number of times.
For the learner to be at level 5 they must understand the communicative principle of
multiplication and the inverse relationship between multiplication and division.
49
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
“It [validity] refers to the truthfulness of findings and conclusions [..] and the
degree to which explanations are accurate…” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010, p.
104).
In qualitative research the issue of quality can be addressed by dealing with validity and
reliability and might be addressed through “the honesty, depth, richness and scope of the
data achieved” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, p. 105) and should indicate “the
intensive personal involvement and in-depth responses of individuals” (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2000, p. 110). Validity and reliability in terms of the MR programme instruments
have been established through extensive testing in Northern New South Wales and has been
adopted on a relatively significant scale in school systems in several other countries
(Wright, 2003). Maxwell (2004) argues that within qualitative research one needs to think
about specific validity threats and to find strategies to deal with them. He also suggests
respondent validation, although my learners were too young for respondent validation.
Breakwell (1995) states that research interviews require a particularly systematic approach
to data collection in order to maintain validity and reliability. Wright et al. (2006) advise
that the interviewer does not change the items or the order of the items. I complied with this
suggestion in administering the interview. I have also drawn on my supervisor and co-
supervisor to interrogate the extent to which my interpretation of the data and learner levels
is recognizable to support inter-rater reliability. This is also consistent with what Wright
suggested we do when he visited South Africa in September 2012.
ETHICS
“Because most educational research deals with human beings, it is necessary to
understand the ethical and legal responsibilities of conducting research. [..]
Ethics generally are concerned with beliefs about what is right and wrong from a
moral perspective. [..] Researchers should generally be open and honest with
participants about all aspects of the study. This usually involves a full disclosure
50
of the purpose of the research…”McMillan & Schumacher., (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2010, p. 117).
I requested a meeting with the SMT and a Grade 4 teacher and explained the purpose of the
study. I further asked permission from the School Governing Body. Once this permission
was granted, I obtained informed consent from principals, teachers, learners and parents
through sending letters which explained the focus of my study. I talked to the learners of
Grade 4 so that they all understood what I was doing before and after administering the first
assessment. I explained that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any
time without prejudice. I obtained consent forms signed by parents or guardians before I
started to collect the data. I ensured that arrangements were made that were not disruptive
to the learners or their families and worked to find suitable times for conducting my
research after school. I used pseudonyms in the research, and assured everyone of the
confidentiality of the information collected. I committed to ensure their anonymity during
the research process. I also explained that only I and my supervisors would have access to
the videos.
51
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter reports on the analysis of the data and findings obtained in this study. The
analysis involved a comparison of the performance of the learners over time between the pre
and post assessments. The LFIN framework enabled me to profile the learners and provided
a way of seeing whether there was progression from one level to another. I used the
spectrum of mathematical proficiency discussed in Chapter Three. Translating qualitative
data into spectrums and visual summaries enabled me to track the notion of multiplicative
proficiency progress as discussed in Chapter Three. Analysing the data enabled me to
answer my research questions:
• What level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed by the learners?
• How effective will the use of the Mathematics Recovery programme be in the South
African context when implemented to a group of learners?
When analysing the data I looked at the following:
• Learner progress in LFIN levels over time from pre and post assessment.
• Learner multiplicative proficiency using the types of strategies employed by the leaners
for all the tasks.
LEARNER PROGRESS IN LFIN LEVELS
Learner progress in LFIN levels data was analysed qualitatively to get a broader picture of
how the learners had progressed across the five levels on the basis of strategies used to solve
multiplication and division tasks. Guidelines for profiling of learners onto LFIN levels were
provided by Wright (2000). As detailed in Chapter Three, for the learner to be classified as
level 1 the learner cannot produce a number word sequence of multiples of threes and when
counting visible collection of equal groups counts by one rather than by multiples. Level 2
is characterised by the use of multiplication strategies, counting in multiples where the items
52
are visible. Level 3 learners use skip counting and repeated addition to establish the
numerosity of screened arrays and a partially screened array and by doing so counts equal
groups by multiples. For a learner to be profiled to level 4 and 5 which is advanced
multiplication, the learner must have developed an understanding of an abstract composite
unit and no equipment is used, the tasks are presented verbally and the learner understands
the concept of community and inverse relationship and area multiplication.
To address question one of my study: What level of multiplicative reasoning is displayed by
the learners, I look firstly at learners overall progress over time and then drill down to look
at the detailed responses and methods used by each learner.
Table 4.1 below gives an overall picture of how the learners progressed in terms of the
LFIN levels from the pre-assessment to the post assessment.
Learner A Learner B Learner C Learner D Learner E
PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST
LEVELS 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 4 4 5
Looking at table 4.1 Learner A and B were at level 2 in the pre-assessment and both
progressed to level 3 in the post assessment. In the pre-assessment, learner C was at level 1,
as she was only learner who relied on counting visible items in ones. Learner D was able to
count screened items and showed competency at level 3. Learner E was at level 4.
Following the intervention, the data shows that all learners progressed at least one LFIN
level in multiplication. Learner C progressed by two levels from level 1 to level 3 showing
good progress. Three learners (A, B and C) achieved level 3 as their final level. Level 3
indicates that the learner can use multiplicative strategies where items are screened, can
count in multiples or use addition and subtraction to be able to solve the problem. Learner
D achieved a final level of 4 indicating that this learner was able to solve problems such as 5
Table 4.1: Learners overall progress in LFIN levels over time from pre-assessment to post-assessment
53
x 3 and was also aware of the 3 as an abstract composite and unitary aspect. The learner
coordinated two composite units in the text of multiplication. Learner E was the only learner
to achieve the highest LFIN level of 5, which revealed that the learner could recall or
quickly derive many of the basic facts and was aware of the communicative principle of
multiplication, inverse relationship and area of multiplication the multiplicative reasoning is
well developed.
INDIVIDUAL LEARNER ANALYSIS
LEARNER A
Pre-assessment
According to data analysis Learner A could form equal groups taking the counters one by
one and when asked how many counters in each group, he started counting from one not in
groups. Learner A could produce a number sequence of multiples of 2’s, 10’s, 5’s and 3’s
fluently. It was difficult for the learner to answer the question on arrays as he lacked an
understanding of the row and columns. When given 2 x 10, 3 x 5 and 4 x 5 arrays he
counted the dots in ones and they were turned 90! he started counting from 1. The learner
was not confident when giving the answer and seemed uncomfortable in handling the
manipulative. He used mostly fingers to count and sometimes was observed counting in
ones silently. The learner could not estimate and for partition division he struggled to give
the answer. He used his fingers when sharing 24 ÷ 3 and got the answer correct. For sharing
15 counters equally among three children he could do that instantly without using counters
and could explain that he counted by 3’s. For quotient division the learner could count in
groups of 4’s and 5’s. When he was sharing the objects to the containers he did that in ones
not in groups. For the screened arrays the learner was able to give the answer, only question
5c stumped him where he was given 30 and seven containers but expected to use only 20
and five containers. The learner could not respond to the questions for advanced
multiplication and division. The learner seemed to be operating in level 2 according to LFIN
as indicated in table 4.1.
54
Post assessment
In the post assessment learner A showed evidence of progressing from counting in ones
when making equal groups. He made groups of 4’s immediately and confirmed the number
in each group by counting in multiples of 4’s. For FNWS multiples he was able to count in
2’s, 3’s, 5’s from any number e.g. when asked to count from 30. When counting in 10’s he
could count correctly from 10 to 100 and from 100 he counted 101, 102, and later made a
correction and counted correctly. When counting the counters arranged in 2 x 10 arrays at
first when he counted 2 x 10 he counted in 2’s and when asked how he counted he counted
in 10’s. For the 3 x 5 array he counted in 5’s and 3’s. For 4 x 5 arrays he counted in 5’s and
4’s. In partition division the learner showed an improvement by not taking the counters one
by one. Rather he took them in one group of three and one of two to make five in each
group. The learner could make groups of 4’s and 2’s when sharing 24 counters amongst 4
children. His understanding of equal groups was evident when given seven containers and
asked to use five and 20 counters he could put the two counters he was not going to use
upside down. When counting the screened arrays he could confidently give the correct
answers. It was evident that he progressed to level 3 because he could use multiplicative
counting strategies where items were screened, he counted in 3’s, 4’s and 5’s as there was
no counting in ones but when counting in multiples with the visible objects abstract thinking
was not yet developed but progressed when it came to counting in ones and fingers. In both
the pre and post assessment this learner could not do the advanced tasks (see table 4.1).
LEARNER B
Pre-assessment
In the pre-assessment learner B moved the counters one by one when forming the groups
and after forming the groups she was able to count in 4’s to confirm the groups: 4, 8, 12 and
able to explain that three counters were left. She could produce counting in multiples of 2’s,
5’s, and 10 but when counting in 3’s learner B omitted the numbers and could not keep the
number sequence, she counted 3, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, 24. When counting the 3 x 5 array she
could count silently in 1’s and when it was turned 90! she could count in 5’s to tell how
many dots there were altogether, for 10 x 2 she counted 10 + 10 = 20. For the multiplication
55
tasks the learner at first counted in 1’s silently and later count in 3’s after being probed.
When asked to estimate, the learner used her fingers while counting in ones. The learner
could share the counters in the containers but could not recall how many counters she put in
each container. She wanted to recount the counters in the container. She used the tactic of
counting in ones more and counted visible objects. The learner was operating on level 2 and
needed to develop confidence in what she was doing as showed in table 4.1.
Post assessment
The learner moved the counters in groups of 4’s, and confidently explained how she formed
the groups and counted from 4 to 12 fluently. She counted fluently in multiples of 2’s, 5’s
and 10’s but with 3’s she paused after each count. She instantly gave the answer in the 2 x
10 arrays and even explained that she counted in 10’s to get 20 dots. In the 4 x 5 array she
gave the answer instantly as 20 and when asked how she got the answer she could explain
her reasons fluently when counting in 5’s but counting in 4’s she used rhythmic counting.
She could give the answer to 12 counters in four groups of 3’s. When executing the task on
partition division and quotient division with equal groups she could not do it without the
counters but she could share them by taking the counters in groups. When putting the
counters in a group she put them in groups not in ones. For the screened array the learners
could give the answer correctly with confidence. After the intervention teaching the learner
showed progression to level 3 but the learner could not do the advanced multiplication and
division.
LEARNER C
Pre-assessment
Learner C moved the counters one by one when forming the groups and after forming the
groups she continued to count in 1’s when confirming the groups. The learner was able to
count fluently in 2’s, 5’s, and 10 but when counting in 3’s she counted from 3 to 12 and
could not keep track of her counting in 3’s. For the arrays the learners had no understanding
of rows and columns and it was left up to me to remind her. When counting the 3 x 5 array
she counted internally in 1’s, even when the array was turned 90!. For 10 x 2 she counted
56
in 1’s but gave the answer of 19 instead of 20, and did the same with 4 x 5 where she
answered 19. For multiplication the learner could count in multiples of 3’s when probed but
could not go further than 12. The learner took one counter at a time and counted them in 1’s
to find the number in each group and counted the counters three times to give the answer.
The learner could share the counters in the containers equally but could not recall how many
counters she put in each container. The learner demonstrated level 1 strategy, as she
depended on concrete counting when solving the tasks.
Post assessment
After the intervention teaching the learner could move the counters in groups of 4’s, and
confidently explain how she formed the groups and counted from 4 to 12 fluently. She
counted fluently in multiples of 5’s. Her Forward Number Word Sequence (FNWS) had
improved and she no longer omitted numbers. She instantly gave the answer in the 2 x 10
arrays and even explained that she counted in 10’s to get 20 dots. In the 3 x 5 and 4 x 5
arrays she instantly gave the answer and could explain that she counted in 5’s. She could
answer the 12 dots in four groups of 3 counters in each group. When executing the task on
partition division and quotient division with equal groups she could not do it without the
counters but she could share them by taking the counters in groups of 4’s at the same time.
For 24 ÷ 3 she first took the group of 4’s and added the second group of 4’s to make eight in
a group, here she displayed an understanding of commutative property. When sharing the
counters into the containers the learner could not do this without the counters, and when
putting the counters in a group she put them in groups not in ones. When asked how many
counters were in a group the learner gave the wrong answer without reasoning about it, I
repeated the question and she then gave the correct answer. The learner demonstrated her
competence to be at level 3, the learner was challenged by item 5(c) where she needed to
recall how many counters she put in each container. She could answer all the questions on
screened arrays and enjoyed the arrays. Even though the learner could not do advanced
multiplication and division, she had progressed from level 1 to level 3 according to LFIN.
57
LEARNER D
Pre-assessment
During the pre-assessment interview Learner D moved the counters one by one when
forming the groups and after forming the groups she continued counting in 1’s to confirm
the groups. The learner was able to count fluently in 2’s, 5’s, and 10 but when counting in
3’s, she paused after each multiple of 3. Anghlieri (1989) points out that when time lapses
between counts, that indicates that counting in 1’s is taking place. When counting the 3 x 5
array she lifted each finger as each finger represented one dot. She counted internally in 1’s
and when the array was turned 90! she re-counted in 1’s. For the 10 x 2 array she silently
counted in 1’s. When the learner was given a pile of counters to share equally among three
learners, she did not touch the counters she looked at them and lifted three fingers and
counted until she got to 15. When given a pile of 24 counters to share equally among three
children she pointed to the counters one by one without touching them and could share them
correctly. She quickly answered 24 ÷ 4 = 6. The learner could share the counters in the
containers and could give the total number in each container. With the visible array of 3 x 5
she gave the answer fluently. The learner could respond to the advanced tasks but before she
could give the answer she needed more time to think and then gave the correct answer. The
learner was operating at level 3.
Post assessment
She moved the counters in groups of 4’s, and confidently explained how she formed the
groups and counted from 4 to 12 fluently. She counted fluently in multiples of 2’s, 5’s and
10’s. When counting in 3’s from any number she lost track and still omitted the numbers,
18, 22, and 24 but later corrected herself. She instantly gave the answer for the 2 x 10 arrays
and explained that she counted in 10’s to get 20 dots. In the 3 x 5 arrays she instantly gave
the answer of 15. In the 4 x 5 arrays she gave the answer instantly as 20 and when asked
how she got the answer she could explain that she counting in 5’s. She could answer the 12
dots in four groups of 3 counters in each group.
When executing the tasks on partition division and quotient division with equal groups she
looked at the counters and shared correctly without touching the pile of counters. For 24 ÷ 3
58
she explained that she would have taken seven counters and added one to make a group.
The learner could correctly estimate the number of counters that would be in each group and
when putting the counters in containers she put them in groups. She responded fluently
about the screened array. Learner D could answer the advanced question in task group 1
items from 1 to 4, correctly. The learner had improved also in pausing before giving the
answer and she just gave the answer immediately and with confidence. After the teaching
intervention the learner was able to progress to level 4.
59
LEARNER E
Pre-assessment
The learner moved the counters one by one when forming the groups and after forming the
groups she continued counting in 1’s to confirm the groups. The learner was able to count
fluently in 2’s, 5’s, 10’s and 3’s. When counting in 5’s she lifted five fingers. She also she
did that when counting in 3’s and tapped her fingers when counting. She could immediately
give the answer and when probed as to how she got the answer she indicated the knowledge
of counting in multiples of 10’s, 4’s and 5’s and could apply that knowledge to answer other
questions confidently. She did not do concrete forming of equal groups. She just looked at
the counters and gave the correct answer. This suggested that her multiplicative reasoning
had been developed. For task 5(c) she did not put the counters in the container; she looked
at them and gave the correct answer. She had an understanding of division of equal groups.
She was one learner who was given the advanced tasks in the pre-assessment. When she
was asked to share the 14 cookies amongst 3 children her answer was “each will get 3 ½
cookies” which demonstrated her ability to do fractions. She mostly gave the answers
confidently and she had the knowledge of multiples and their application. She could not
proceed to tasks that used composite units, understanding commutative principle of
multiplication, inverse relationship between multiplication and division and multiplication
facts to derive division facts. In all the tasks that the learner answered she was on the
average level or above average level. The learner was operating in level 4, her solutions
indicated an understanding of abstract composite units, and she could keep track of the
number of times she made counts.
Post assessment
She moved the counters in groups of 4’s, and confidently explained how she formed the
groups and counted from 4 to 12 fluently. She counted fluently in multiples of 2’s, 5’s, 10’s
and 3’s. She instantly gave the answer in 2 x 10 arrays and even explained that she counted
in 10’s to get 20 dots. In the 3 x 5 arrays she instantly gave the answer of 15. In the 4 x 5
arrays she gave the answer instantly as 20 and when asked as to how she got the answer she
explained that she counting in 5’s and in 4’s. She could answer the 12 dots in four groups of
60
3 counters in each group. When executing the tasks on partition division and quotient
division with equal groups she listened to the instruction and gave the answer immediately
without looking at and touching the pile of counters. For 24 ÷ 3 she explained the strategy
of using the known facts that if 3 children get five each that makes 15 and subtracted 15
from 24,and got the answer nine which she further divided it into 3 and added the 3 to 5 to
make 8 counters for each person.
For 24 ÷ 4 she already knew that 20 ÷ 4 = 5 and minus the 20 from 24 and left with 4, which
she later divided amongst four and added the one to the five to make six for each person.
The learner could correctly estimate the number of counters that would be in each group
when putting the counters in containers she put them in groups. When given 30 counters and
seven containers and was asked to put 20 counters in five containers she put aside the TWO
containers that she was not going to use and counted 10 counters from 30 counters and put
them aside and put the 20 counters in five containers. She counted the counters in the
container herself without being asked to do so. She responded fluently about the screened
array.
For the advanced tasks the learner was confident in giving the correct answer and when
probed she could explain that 5 +5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 30, 5 x 6 =30 and 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2
+ 2 = 12, 12 ÷ 2 = 6. It was easy for her to give the answers with the remainder. When given
the task of 9 x 7 she could explain that was seven groups of 9’s. In 8 x 4 and 32 ÷ 8 she was
able to explain that 32 was the answer to 8 x 4 and 8 is the answer to 32 ÷ 4. She solved the
problem of 56 ÷ 8 = 7 correctly and explained that seven groups of 8 make 56. She could
instantly give the number of squares, which was 21, and her justification for the answer
indicated an understanding of rows and columns. She showed evidence of progression in the
way she gave answers about the strategies that she used. The learner progressed to level 5;
she used automised multiplication facts to solve different multiplicative tasks.
61
LEARNER’S MULTIPLICATIVE PROFICIENCY
In order to analyse multiplicative proficiency I quantified the qualitative data to track
possible progress using the spectrum discussed in Chapter Three. The progress of the
learner was evident when they moved to the middle or upper end of the spectrum which
indicates increased fluency, flexibility and efficiency.
Table 4.2 below indicates the positions of each learner according to the methods each used
on the spectrum for the pre and post assessments starting with constrained (I-Inefficient) on
the left, fluent (IE) methods in the middle and flexible fluency (E-Efficient) on the right.
The values are the number of tasks where the learners showed the usage of different
methods.
Table 4.2: Summary of spectrum methods for all learners across seven tasks
62
In conjunction with the graphs shown in figures 4.1 and 4.2, a visual picture of the data for
learner progress in multiplicative proficiency emerges. Shifts in learner responses over time
are evident. In the pre-assessment Learners B, C was split between using constrained
methods and flexible methods, with Learner C using mostly constrained method. Learner
A was split in all the methods but with more of constrained method. Learner D was split
using all the methods but least of fluency. Learner E was split between using constrained
and flexible methods but more with flexible fluency. Most learners seemed to rely most on
using constrained methods as compared to fluently and flexible fluency. Learners B and C
did not use any flexible fluency methods at all.
Figure 4.1: Learners’ overall multiplicative proficiency in pre assessment
LEARNER A LEARNER B LEARNER C LEARNER D LEARNER E Contrained 5 4 6 3 1
Fluency 1 3 1 1 2
Flexibly fluency 1 0 0 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
METHO
DS
LEARNER’S OVERALL MULTIPLICATIVE PROFICIENCY IN PRE ASSESSMENT
63
Figure 4.2: Learners’ overall multiplicative proficiency in post assessment
The post assessment indicated an overall improvement in multiplicative proficiency for all
the learners. There was decreased use of constrained methods and an increase in fluent and
flexibly fluency. Although Learners A and B are still using some constrained methods in
the post assessment, their biggest shift is to using more flexible methods.
Comparing the graphs shown overleaf (for the pre-assessment and post assessments), it is
clear that for all learners, flexibility and fluency in methods used increased. In the next
section I focus on the findings for the second research question.
LEARNER A LEARNER B LEARNER C LEARNER D LEARNER E Constrained 2 2 2 0 0
Fluency 0 0 2 1 0
Flexibly Fluency 5 5 3 6 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
METHO
DS
LEARNER’S OVERALL MULTIPLICATIVE PROFICIENCY IN POST ASSESSMENT
64
ADDRESSING THE SECOND RESEARCH QUESTION
When comparing the LFIN levels of the learners for pre and post assessment I noticed a
positive shift from one level to the next. All learners progressed at least one level within
four weeks and one learner progressed two levels (Learner C). Since the MR programme
was implemented over only four weeks, it is reasonable to assume that the MR programme
rather than the learners continued school learning has a positive on shifting these learners up
the levels.
The visual, quantifiable data in the form of spectrums and graphs combined with qualitative
data assisted in presenting a richer, deeper analysis of this data and showed that they
complement each other. A summary of learners’ proficiency levels over time contributed to
the potential value of the MR programme. From the levels data and methods data we note
that all learners progressed in both aspects indicating the closeness of the relationship
between these aspects. For example, Learner C (as in the levels), made good progress in
methods; i.e. from a ratio of incidences of constrained to incidences of flexible fluency of 6
: 0 in the pre-assessment to 2 : 3 in the post assessment. I believe that there is evidence that
the MR programme can be effectively implemented in the South African context to a small
group of learners, which addresses the second of the research questions. Whether the MR
programme could be successfully implemented with a larger group of learners remained to
be researched further.
The intervention was limited to four weeks due to the scope and time frame restrictions of
the research. Further research and intervention over a longer period of time could
investigate the possible movement of learners through two or three levels. The fact that the
learners in this study showed good progress highlighted the need for continued intervention.
65
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
For learners to develop multiplicative reasoning they need to learn to identify the number in
each group, the number of groups and the total in a range of multiplicative situations and
come to know that it is the unknown quantity that makes the situation a multiplication
and/or a division problem. This enables them to use the inverse relationship and move
flexibly between multiplication and division. The use of the Maths Recovery (MR)
Programme which included profiling of learners to LFIN levels, teaching in the form of a
short intervention and conducting pre and post interview assessments made it possible for
the learners in my sample to progress in terms of multiplicative reasoning. The MR
programme made it possible to understand that when teaching the learners, one should
understand the levels that the learners are operating at so as to assist them in their learning
trajectory. During the intervention, the researcher gave the learners guided support, helping
learners to think about multiplication and division, encouraging them to use their strategies
and make mistakes. Learners were encouraged to enter into discussion in keeping with the
constructivist notion that learners are not consumers of content but rather they are
constructors of content. Keeping learner-centeredness, by engaging the learners in activities
that involved active learning, problem solving and critical thinking were considered in the
teaching strategies in the MR programme.
Given the relatively short intervention in this study, four sessions over five weeks, progress
made by learners from level one to another level was one of the most important results for
both myself as researcher (and teacher) and the learners themselves. The data showed that in
the pre-assessment, learners were counting in ones (positioning them at level 1) and relying
on using constrained methods. After the intervention, the post assessment shows that this
decreased to 0 and learners were able to count in equal groups and use more efficient and
fluent methods to solve the tasks. As Table 4.1 in the previous chapter showed, the rate of
progression in my study was far greater than I expected; all learners progressed at least one
level. Learner C progressed from level 1 to level 3 in the short time, which represents a
significant shift in her multiplicative reasoning.
66
An overview of comparison of both assessments for each level showed significant
improvement on learner performance and progress from one level to another. However, not
all learners were able to progress to level 5, except for Learner E. One out of five of the
learners from the sample was in level 1 and 2 out of five learners were in level 2, One
learner was in level 3 and one learner was in level 4. The learners could progress from the
level where they were to the next level as indicated in table 4. 1
This study also showed that learners were motivated to do mathematics and this increased
their self-confidence and hence, their belief in their ability to do mathematics. This was
identified when the learners were better at explaining their reasoning and strategies. As a
result, they enjoyed the mathematics sessions, looked forward to mathematics time and were
eager to be tested on what they learnt previously. Learners were motivated when they
experienced level of success. Von Glasersfeld (1989) believes that a learner’s motivation to
learn is strongly dependent on the learner’s confidence in their potential for learning.
Learners gained confidence and motivation to embark on more difficult challenges by virtue
of their successful completion of prior challenging tasks.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MY WORK
A key aim of this research was for me as a teacher (and more recently as a teacher educator)
to explore the extent to which the MR programme could be used to support learners in
developing multiplicative reasoning and proficiency. This is a key outcome of this research.
As a teacher I have learnt the importance of providing learning tasks that allow
collaboration with peers, having access to concrete materials like arrays for multiplication
and division. As a teacher I have seen that the MR programme offers rich learning activities
for teachers to use in interventions. I have also seen the usefulness of learning as an
educator from the interview and see it as a useful developmental tool. Wright (2013)
himself urges teachers and teacher educators to find ways to “incrementally trial and
implement” (p.38) MR programme approaches. He believes that this professional learning is
a “pathway to profoundly strengthening children’s learning of basic arithmetic” (p.38) and
that this can lead to young children achieving at significantly higher levels.
67
Research-learner interaction was crucial in creating an effective learning culture. The
suggestion of the use of after school small group learning opportunities for supporting and
enabling both student and teacher learning (Graven , 2011; Graven & Stott, 2012b; Stott &
Graven, 2013c) helped me to ensure a non-threatening learning environment, which
established open dialogue where questions and discussions were encouraged in a non-
judgmental way. My enthusiasm and passion for mathematics also likely inspired the
learners. The social interaction of the learners served to support, challenge and encourage
one another.
Half way through my Masters research in March 2013, I was promoted to be Deputy Chief
Education Specialist as a Curriculum Planner for Foundation Phase Mathematics in the
Eastern Cape Department of Education. This gave me an opportunity to share my study
with 230 lead teachers and 23 subject advisors who were astonished by the teaching of
multiplication and division using arrays and later indicated that learners enjoyed them. They
also later indicated anecdotally that learners had improved in multiplication as a result of
their use of these conceptual resources. In future working with the teachers in the districts I
plan to use the Mathematics Recovery Programme as one way of improving learner
performance and also improving teacher understanding of learners multiplicative reasoning.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Although progression for the learners was evident and with all its advantages, the key
disadvantage of the MR Programme is that it is labour intensive and time consuming to
administer for more than a few learners. The assessment interviews took approximately one
and a half hours for each learner. Additional time was spent coding and allocating learners
to LFIN levels. Thus while I would recommend that teachers conduct the interviews with a
range of their learners in order to gain in-depth insight into learner levels and difficulties in
multiplicative reasoning, it is not feasible to assess all learners in this way. However the
implementation of the multiplication part of the MR programme to a group of learners holds
potential for work in class and I have conducted a fruitful workshop in this regard with the
Foundation Phase teachers in the Eastern Cape.
68
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The findings of the efficacy of this study point to an Extended MR programme in a
classroom situation but conducted over a longer period of time, perhaps the three years as
Wright (2003) has suggested, for all six aspects of the framework.
More research needs to be done on intervention strategies to improve the state of
mathematics in South African schools.
Further useful research would be a comparison of the findings of this study with similar
research to investigate the resonance of these findings across other parts of South Africa.
69
REFERENCES
Anghileri, J. (1989). An investigation of young children's understanding of multiplication.
Education Studies in Mathematics, 20, 367-389.
Askew, M. (2013). Mediating learning number bonds through a Vygoskian lens of
Scientific Concepts. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 3(2), 1 - 20.
Bobis, J., Clarke, B., Clarke, D., Thomas, G., Wright, R., Young-Loveridge, J. & Gould. P.
(2005). Supporting Teachers in the Development of Young Children's Mathematical
Thinking: Three Large Scale Cases. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
16(3), 27 - 57.
Breakwell, G. M. (1995). Introduction Approaches to Data Collection and Analysis. British
Pyschological Press.
Clark F.B., & Kamii, C. (1996). Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in
Grade 1-5. Journal for Research in Mathematics., 27(No.1), 41-51.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1980). Research Methods in Education. London: Croom Helm.
Cohen, L., Manion,L. & Morrision, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education 5th ed.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Department of Education. (2002). Revised National Curriculum Statement. Pretoria:
Govement Printers.
Department of Education. (2011). Report on Annual National Assessment. Pretoria:
Department of Basic Education.
Department of Education. (2012). Action Plan to 2014 - Towards the Realisation of
Schooling 2025. Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Education. (2012). Eastern Cape ANA Report on Question by Question
Analysis. Zwelitsha: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2012). Report on Annual National Assessment. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
70
Fosnot, C. T. (2003). Teaching and learning in the 21st century. AMESA. Cape Town.
Fosnot, C., & Dolk, M. (2009). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing multiplication
& division. Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann Press.
Glaserfeld, E.V. In: Husen.T & Postlethwaite, T.N. (1989). Constructivism in Education.
(E. I. Glaserfeld, Ed.) The International Encyclopedia of of Education, 1, 162-163.
Graven, M. (2011). Creating New Mathematical Stories: exploring opportunities within
Maths Clubs. In H. Venkat, & A. Essien (Ed.), Proceedings of 17th National
Congress of the Association for Mathematical Education of South Africa (AMESA)
(pp. 161-170). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Graven, M., & Stott, D. (2012a). Conceptualising procedural fluency as a spectrum of
proficiency. In S. Nieuwoudt, D. Laubscher, & H. Dreyer (Ed.), Proceedings of 18th
Annual National Congress of the Association for Mathematical Education of South
Africa (AMESA) (pp. 146-156). Potschefstroom: North-West University.
Graven, M., & Stott, D. (2012b). Design issues for mathematics clubs for early grade
learners. In D. Nampota, & M. Kazima (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual
Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education (pp. 94-105). Lilongwe: University of Malawi.
Graven, M., Venkat, H., Westerway, L. & Tshesane, L. (2013). Place value without number
sense: Exploring the need for mental mathematical skills assessment with the
Annual National Assessment. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 3, 131
- 144.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction
to school-based research. New York: Routledge.
Hoover, W. A. (1996). The practice: Implications of constructivism. SEDL Letter 9.
Howie, S. (2004). A national assessment in mathematics within an international
comparative assessment. Perpectives in Education, 22(2), 149 - 162.
Jacob, L., & Willis, S. (2003). The development of Multiplicative Thinking in young
children. Mathematics Education Research: Innovation, networking, opportunity.
71
Proceedings of the 26th Annual conference of Mathematics Education Reserach
Group in Australia (MERGA) (pp. 460 - 467). Geelong: Deakin University.
Janse Van Rensburg, E. (2001). An Orientation to Research. In In Research Design
Decisions for the People- Environment-Education Interface. Grahamstown: Rhodes
University.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (Eds). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children to
learn mathematics. Washington: National Academy Press.
Kim, B. (2006). Social constructivism: Emerging perceptives on learning, teaching and
technology. Retrieved from www.coe.uga epltt/ Social Constructivism.htm.
Kühne,C., Lombart,A., & Moodley, T. (2013). A learning pathway for whole numbers that
informs mathematics teaching in early years. South African Journal of Childhood
Education, 3(2), 77 -79.
Lietz, C.A., Langer, C.L. & Furma, R. (2006). Establishing trustworthiness in Qualitative
Research in Social Work: Implications from a Study Regarding Sprituality. Sage
Publications, 5, 441-458.
Maree, K., Aldous, C., Hattingh, A., Swanepoel, A., & van der Linde, M. (2006). Predictors
of learner perfomance in mathematics and science acccording to a large-scale study
in Mpumalanga. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 229-252.
Matthew, M. R. (1992). Constructivism and empiricism: An incomplete divorce. 22, 299 -
307.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). A Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage
Publications, Incorporated.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.
California: Bass Publishers.
72
Mulligan, J. (2002). The role of Structure in Children's Development of Multiplicative
Reasoning.In Barton, B., Irwin K.C., Pfannukuch, M. & Thomas, M.O. J. (eds).
Mathematics Education in the South Pacific. Proceedings of the 25th Annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia, (pp. 497 -
503). Sydney.
Mulligan,J & Mitchelmore, M. (1997). Young children's intuitive model of multiplication
and division. 28 (3), 309 - 330.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago I.L: University of
Chicago.Press.
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematic pedagogy from a constructivist
perspective. Jornal of Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114- 145.
Stott, D.& Graven, M. (2013a). Qualifying quantitative numerary interview data. In Z.
Davis, & S. Jaffer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Congress of the
Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA) (pp. 194 - 208).
Bellville, Cape Town: University of the Western Cape (UWC).
Stott, D., & Graven , M. (2013b). Procedural spectrums: translating qualitative data into
visual summaries. In M. Ogunniyi, O. Amosun, K. Langenhoven, S. Kwofie, & S.
Dinie (Ed.), Making Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Socially and
Culturally Relevant in Africa: Proceedings of 21st Annual Meeting Of The Southern
African Association For Research in Mathematics, Science And Technology
Education. (pp. 55-66). Cape Town: University of the Western Cape (UWC).
Stott, D., & Graven, M. (2013c). The dialectical relationship between theory and practice in
the design of an after-school mathematics club. Pythagoras, 1-10. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v34i1.174
Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching Mathematics: Using research-informed strategies. Victoria:
Acer Press.
Venkat, H. &. (2013, September). Editorial. South African Journal of Childhood Education,
3(2), i-iv.
73
Vergnaud, G. (1983). Mathematics structures: Acquisition of mathematics concepts and
procedures. (M. Landau, & R. Lesh, Eds.) New York: Academic Press.
Weitz, M. (2012). Number strategies of Grade 2 learners: Learning from perfomance on the
Learning Framework in Number Test and the Grade 1 Annual National Assessment.
Masters dissertation. University of Witwatersrand.
Wright, R. (2003). A Mathematics Recovery: Program of intervention in early number
learning. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(4).
Wright, R. J. (2013). Assessing early numeracy: Significance, trends, nomenclature, contex,
key topics, learning framework and assessment tasks. South African Journal of
Childhood Education, 3(2), 21 - 40.
Wright, R.J., Martland, J., & Stafford, A.K. (2006). Early numeracy:assessment for
teaching and intervention. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd,.
Wright, R.J.. Martland, J., Stafford, A.K. & Stanger, G. (2006). Teaching Number:
Advancing children's skills and strategies (2nd edition). London: Paul Chapman
Publishing Ltd.
75
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW SCRIPT
R: I have a pile of 15 counters; make 3 groups with four in each group
L: (Takes each counter slowly one by one making 3 rows with four counters)
R: How many did you use?
L (Pointing in each counter silently counting in 1’s) 12
R: Count by 2’s I will tell you when to stop.
L: ( Both hands on the desk, extend one finger from the left hand whilst counting 2,
4,fold the same hand and make a fist and continue counting 6, 8, 10 , 12, 14, 16, 18 , 20,
22
R: Stop and count by 10’s I will tell you when to stop.
L: (while she had her fist) 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120.
R: Stop, count by 5’s I will tell you when to stop.
L: (Both hand are put freely on the table whilst counting) 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45,
50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80
R: Count in 3’s I will tell you when to stop.
L: 3, 6, 9, (Start lifting the third figure), 12, (pause) 15, 18, 24
R: Stop, (Display a 10 x 2 array of dots and shows the rows and column), how many dots
are there altogether?
L: (Looks in the dots while counting silently in 1’s), 20.
R: Okay, Display a 5 x 3 array, there are three columns and five rows how many are there
altogether?
L: (Look at the array while counting in 1’s silently), 15.
R: Turn the array through 90!, how many dots altogether now?
L: (Look at the array while counting in 1’s silently), 15.
76
R: Okay, Place four plates and put three counters on each plate, while the learners is looking
on the other side, How many plates
L: 4
R: There are three counters under each plate, how many counters are there altogether?
L: Silently nod the head indicating that there was counting going on, 12
R: Place a pile of 15 counters, I want to share them equally amongst 3 children, and tell me
how many will each get.
L: (Sit up straight and look at the counters without touching them, pause for ten second),
5
R: Here are the 12 counters; I want you to share amongst children so that each child must
get 4, how many children will get counters?
L: (Looked at the counters for ten second) 3.
R: Place 24 counters, I want you to share amongst 3 children, how many will each child
get?
L: Looked at the counters, how many counters mam?
R: I said 24 counters, how many will each get?
L: (Use the fingers to point at the counters one by one), 5
R: Its 24 counters I want you to share amongst 4 children how many will each get?
L: (Looked at the counters without touching it), 6
R: Place four plates with three counters under each plate, how many counters are there
altogether?
L: (Instantly give the answer) 12.
R: Put 12 counters and 3 containers, put the counters equally into these containers and tell
me how many counters you put into the containers. (You are not allowed to count the
counters after you have put them in)
L: (Take the counters one by one into each container), 4
77
R: Okay, Place a pile of 30 counters and seven containers, use 20 counters and five
containers, and tell me how many counters in each container.
L: Was confused just put the counters in all the containers
R: Use 3 x 5 array, cover the two upper rows for a second and uncover the lower three rows
for another second, how many dots are there altogether?
L: Pause, show three fingers, 15
R: Turn the array 90!, how many dots?
L: Pause, silently, 15
R: Place a 6 x 2 array, cover five rows and leave the first row uncovered. How many dots in
a row
L: Looked at the array, 2.
R: There are 12 dots how many rows are there altogether?
L: Pause for ten seconds, 6
R: Six children have five marbles, how many marbles are there altogether?,(Repeated the
question three time)
L: the learner could not give the answer
END OF THE INTERVIEW
78
APPENDIX B: CODING OF LEARNERS
LEARNER A
STR
ATE
GIE
S ST
RA
TEG
IIES
Perceptual counting by
ones
Visible and count in multiples
Multiplicative strategies where
items are screened
Abstract composite and unitary aspect
Coordinate two composite units
TASK
QU
ESTI
ON
S
1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 4d i
4d ii 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3
PRE-
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES ü ü ∧ üü üü üü ü ü ü ü üü xü ??
Revü
?ü ü ?? R
ev??
?ü ?? ID
K
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
POST
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES ü ü ü ü ü ü üü ü üü üü üü üü ü ü üü üü üü üü üü IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
79
LEARNER B
STR
ATE
GIE
S ST
RA
TEG
IIES
Perceptual counting by ones
visible and count in multiples
multiplicative strategies where items are screened
abstract composite and unitary aspect
coordinate two composite units
TASK
Q
UES
TIO
NS
1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c
4d i
4d ii
5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3
PRE
-ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES
ü ü ü ü ∧ ü ü ü xü xü üü xü ?? ?? xü ü
ü ?? ?? ü ü IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
POST
A
SSES
SMEN
T R
ESPO
NSE
S
üü ü ü ü ü ∧ üü ü ü
ü üü
üü xü xü ü ü
ü üü üü
üü xü ID
K
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
LEARNER C
STR
ATE
GIE
S ST
RA
TEG
IIES
Perceptual counting by ones
Visible and count in multiples
Multiplicative strategies where items are screened
Abstract composite and unitary aspect
Coordinate two composite units
TASK
Q
UES
TIO
NS
1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c
4d i
4d ii
5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3
PRE-
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES
?? ü üü ü ∧ ∧ xü ?? ?? ?? ?? ü ü ?
? ?? ü ?? ü ü IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
POST
A
SSES
SMEN
T R
ESPO
NSE
S
ü ü ü ü ü ∧ ü üü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü üü ü
ü üü ü xü ID
K
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
80
LEARNER D
STR
ATE
GIE
S ST
RA
TEG
IIES
Perceptual counting by ones
Visible and count in multiples
Multiplicative strategies where items are screened
Abstract composite and unitary aspect
Coordinate two composite units
TASK
Q
UES
TIO
NS
1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 4d (i)
4d (ii) 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3
PRE-
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES
ü ü üü
üü
üü ∧ ü ?? ?? ?? ?? ü
ü ü ü xü xü ü ü ü ??
??
?? ?? ?? IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
POST
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES
ü ü üü
üü
üü ∧ ü
ü üü
üü
üü
üü
üü
üü xü ü
ü üü üü ü
ü ü xü xü
xü
xü
xü
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
LEARNER E
STR
ATE
GIE
S ST
RA
TEG
IIES
Perceptual counting by ones
Visible and count in multiples
Multiplicative strategies where items are screened
Abstract composite and unitary aspect
Coordinate two composite units
TASK
Q
UES
TIO
NS
1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 4d (i)
4d (ii) 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3
PRE-
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES
ü ü üü
üü
üü ü ü
ü üü
üü
üü
üü
üü ü ?
ü ? ü
xü üü ??
ü ü xü
xü
xü
xü
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
IDK
POST
ASS
ESSM
ENT
RES
PON
SES
üü üü üü
üü
üü ∧ ü
ü üü
üü
üü
üü
üü
üü ü ü
ü üü üü ü
ü üü xü ü
ü
üü
üü
üü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
81
APPENDIX C: SPECTRUM FOR MULTIPLICATIVE PROFICIENCY
For the learners in pre and post assessment for all the tasks
FORMING EQUAL GROUPS
Counting by ones and confirm the number in
groups by counting in ones (I)
Counting in ones and confirm and confirm counting in groups
(IE)
Counting in groups and confirms in group counting
(E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A I E
LEARNER B I E
LEARNER C I E
LEARNER D I E
LEARNER E I E
82
TASK INVOLVING FNWS OF MULTIPLES
Count in 2’s, 5’s. 10’ and 3’s omitting some numbers in
all the multiples of 10’s and 3’s (I)
Count in 2’s, 5’s. 10’ and 3’s but only omitting
multiples of 3 (IE)
Count in 2’s, 5’s. 10’ and 3’s Fluently
(E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A IF E
LEARNER B IF E
LEARNER C I IF
LEARNER D E E
LEARNER E E E
TASK INVOLVING VISIBLE ITEMS ARRANGED IN ARRAYS
Solve the task count one by one
(I)
Solve the task counting by one and some counting by
multiples (IE)
Solve the task by counting using multiples of 3’s, 4’s
and 5’s (E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A I E
LEARNER B I E
LEARNER C I E
LEARNER D IE E
LEARNER E E E
83
TASK INVOLVING EQUAL GROUPS OF VISIBLE ITEMS
Solve the task count one by one (I)
Solve the task counting by one and some counting by multiples (IE)
Solve the task by counting using multiples of 3’s, 4’s and 5’s (E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A IE E
LEARNER B IE E
LEARNER C E E
LEARNER D E E
LEARNER E E
TASK INVOLVING SCREENED ITEMS
Counting using fingers to keep track of groups and count (I)
The learner is able to count the counters after having shared (IE)
Solve the task by counting using multiples or using
addition or subtraction for quotient division with an
array (E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A I E
LEARNER B IE E
LEARNER C I IE
LEARNER D E E
84
LEARNER E E E
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION AND DIVISION TASK PRESENTED VERBALLY WIHOUT VISIBLE OR SCREENED ITEMS
Exhibit knowledge of composite units (I)
Exhibit knowledge of communicative principle of multiplication
(IE)
Exhibit knowledge of inverse relationship between multiplication and division and multiplication facts to derive division facts (E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSME
NT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A I I
LEARNER B I I
LEARNER C I I
LEARNER D I E
LEARNER E IE E
85
ADVANCED MULTIPLICATION AND DIVISION TASK ON COMMUNITATIVITY AND INVERSE RELATIONSHIP AND AREA
MULTIPLICATION
Count in multiples by using knowledge of abstract
composite units
(I)
Count in multiples by using knowledge of
abstract composite units, aware of
both the composite and unitary aspect
(IE)
Keep track of the counts and the total number of
counts
(E)
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
PRE ASSESSMENT
POST ASSESSMENT
LEARNER A I I
LEARNER B I I
LEARNER C I I
LEARNER D I IE
LEARNER E IE E
86
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF INTERVENTION TASKS
Sample of intervention tasks
EQUAL GROUPS 1.1 Making equal groups
Learners are given 12 counters and are asked to make three groups with four in each group.
How many groups? / How many in each group?
1.2 Describing equal groups
Counters/ unifix cubes/ containers
Individuals
Each learner is given 10 counters and two containers, ask them to share it equally into the containers, how many counters in each containers?
Use the same activity but increase the number range
1.3 Combining and counting equal groups
Place out ten 2 – dot cards, put each 2- dot card and let the learner count putting each card after the other.
Similar with 3 dots, four dots, five dots
1.4 Determining the number in an equal share
Resources: dots cards/ unifix cubes
Learners are given six counters. Share them amongst three people. How many will each get?
Use 10 and 2, 12 and 6, 18 and 3
1.5 Determining the number of equal groups
Resources: dots cards/ unifix cubes
Place out four 2-counter cards:
How many counters are there on each
87
card?
How many cards are there?
How many counters are there altogether?
1.6 Describing visible arrays
Resources: Arrays
Arrays
The arrays are explained to the learners - that it has rows and column. The learners were showed the rows and columns. Column
Row
How many rows?
How many dots are altogether?
1.7 Developing counting in groups of 3’s/ 4’s/ 5’s using screen items Resources: two dots / 4 dots/ 5 dots cards
Place out a plate each containing three dots in it. Tell the learners that one plate has three dots, place another plate then and ask the learners how many dots are there altogether in two plates. Put more plates under a screen and ask how many dots are altogether
88
1.8 USE DOT UNDER THE CARD A SCREEN. Resources: dot cards
There are three dot cards, under
each card there are three dots.
How many dots are there
altogether?
The same activity was used but increases the number of dots under each card.
The teacher tells the learner that there are seven cards with 14 dots altogether. Ask how
many dots in each card? Learners will not be allowed to touch the dots.
The same activity was used but increases the number range on the dot card
89
1.9 Resources: Arrays
Display the first row for a second while other rows are covered. Let the learners look at the first row and then show the others for another second or two, ask learners as to how many dots are altogether.
The same activity was used with different arrays
• The teacher unscreens the first row and screens the rest and tells the learners that there are six rows altogether, how many dots are there altogether.
The same activity was used with different arrays. Place a 4 x 5 array and covers one row,
• How many dots are altogether? • How many rows are there? • How many columns? The teacher turns the array at 900
• How many dots are altogether? • How many rows are there? • How many columns? The same activity was used with different arrays
There are 18 dots altogether and there are 3 rows, how many dots in a row.
The same activity was used but increases the number
90
range on the dot cards.
1.10 USE OF A COVERED ARRAY
• How many dots are there altogether? • Explain how did you get the answer?
the same activity was used but increase the number range.
Use the following array to answer the following question
There are 15 dots altogether. Each
row has five dots. How many rows
are there?
If there are six
rows with five dots
in each, how many
dots are
altogether?
92
Word problems: Multiplication and division
• There are four children and they each have three books. How many books are there
altogether
The learner must keep the track of the number of ones in each three, the number of threes and the
total number of counts
• Fourteen pens are put into groups of two’s, how many groups of two are there?
The learner count in multiples and keep track of the number of multiples
Multiplication Facts
Use an array in assisting the learning of multiplication facts 10 x 10 dot array
Learners are asked to come to show what 5 x 8 look like and are showed 5 x 8 array about
turns it to demonstrate 8 x 5